Civil Liberties Groups Challenge USA Patriot Act

CNS News ^ | 21 Jan 2002 | Lawrence Morahan

[white trash redneck]

Civil Liberties Groups Challenge USA Patriot Act
By Lawrence Morahan
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
January 21, 2002

(CNSNews.com) - Three months after President Bush signed into law the controversial USA Patriot Act of 2001, a labyrinth anti-terrorism bill passed in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, many of the bill's provisions are coming under intense fire from civil liberties groups.

In the latest barrage, John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, called the Act the "get out of jail free card for the government."

"It's the bureaucrat's dream in terms of what can be done under it," said Whitehead, a constitutional watchdog and author of "Forfeiting 'Enduring Freedom' for 'Homeland Security,'" an analysis of the Justice Department's anti-terrorism initiatives.

Some provisions of the Patriot Act dealt a blow to civil liberties, especially the right to privacy in online communications, legal analysts reported. The measure also expanded the availability of subpoenas and wiretaps, permitting the execution of search warrants without advance notice and allowing for deportation of aliens without due process.

Lawmakers passed the Act, an acronym for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism," immediately after Sept. 11, and before the full text of the proposal was available to lawmakers.

Moreover, lawmakers did not take sufficient time to debate or hear testimony from experts outside of law enforcement in the fields where it makes major changes, analysts said.

"This thing was put together so quickly after 9-11, when there was hysteria and congressmen were afraid to say anything against it," Whitehead said. "There wasn't any debate on this subject."

The act unnecessarily impinges upon Fourth Amendment protections against search and seizure violations because it significantly changes how search warrants are executed, Whitehead said. Previously, the government needed a warrant before law enforcement officials could enter a house and search an individual's property and documents.

Now police can delay giving notice when conducting searches in any criminal case, allowing them to search homes and offices when the occupants are not there and telling them about it after the fact.

In a sweeping anti-terrorism campaign after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Justice Department rounded up more than 1,200 people - mostly of Middle Eastern descent.

Several civil rights groups and a few members of Congress have questioned the constitutionality of detentions and asked whether anti-terrorism tactics adopted by the department have been appropriate. Others have questioned how those being detained have been treated.

Constitutional Challenges Expected

After the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, Congress passed an anti-terrorism bill, much of which was thrown out by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional, said J. Bradley Jansen, deputy director of the Center for Technology Policy with the Free Congress Foundation, and an expert on the Patriot Act.

"So I suspect that there will be constitutional challenges to many parts of this," added Jansen, who heads a coalition of conservative groups that are studying provisions of the bill together with Justice Department officials. The group is conducting an analysis of the entire bill and expects to make recommendations based on their findings by mid-February.

"It was a very large, substantive bill that changed very, very quickly in a very short period of time," Jansen said. "Now that the dust has finally settled, we've all kind of taken a step back and we're ... going through methodically all of the changes that it did make and what those mean."

Military Tribunals Not Part of Patriot Act

Military tribunals designed to try suspected terrorists would require a unanimous vote on death sentences and allow for an appeals process, and would have no connection with the Patriot Act, legal analysts reported.

President Bush's order authorizing military tribunals to detain and try foreign nationals accused of committing terrorist acts against the United States unleashed a firestorm of criticism, most of it suggesting that military trials grossly violate the U.S.'s commitment to civil rights and civil liberties.

"I don't know what people think foreign terrorists require, but the kind of trial foreign terrorists will get before any military tribunal is far fairer than they would get in any court in their own country," commented Thomas L. Jipping, vice president for Legal Policy with the Free Congress Foundation.

Jipping pointed out, however, that concerns about the Patriot Act have to do with domestic liberties and U.S. citizens' privacy, while military tribunals aren't intended for U.S. citizens at all.

"Concern about the Patriot Act really has as much to do with its impact on our privacy after the war is over as it does the way it's being used right now, whereas military tribunals are only used in wartime and are irrelevant to peacetime," he said.

Whitehead said he did not oppose military tribunals in principle. "The military tribunal is probably appropriate as long as it provides adequate safeguards for appeal," he said.

[goldilucky]

...."Among the other flaws of the bill, as detailed by the ACLU , are 'Sneak and Peak Searches,' which allow the government to obtain secret warrants to enter homes, offices and places of business and download computer files without first informing the subjects of the search, and 'Forum Shopping,' which allow police to obtain a search warrant from any jurisdiction in the country regardless of where the search is to take place. If a judge in Vermont won’t provide a warrant to search a home in Vermont, the police can go to Texas or anywhere else to obtain the warrant."

Thank you very much for that information, Black Jade. Not only is it interesting but provides a tool that some lawyers can use to challenge this grossly unconstitutional "Act" as initiated both by the Senate and the House.

Man... has this country gone nuts or what!

[goldilucky]

Thank you... I will do just that!

[Dan from Michigan]

GOOD! Time to put the unpatriotic act in the trash.

[Dan from Michigan]

Isn't it more important to safeguard our society when we're at war?

At the cost of freedom...no. The cure is worse than the disease. I damn well don't want John Edwards or Hillary with this power.

[lakey]

You are always right on track, on the mark!

[lakey]

#38 ... what did Bush think he was doing? ... don't know. Maybe he's a closet fascist. Ashcroft gives that impression.

[Doctor Stochastic]

we are at War now
do no Wrong, nothing to fear
it's for The Children

[southern rock]

2) Our "society" is threatened far worse when liberty and rights are stomped upon.

But haven't you heard?? Safety is what is important these days. /sarcasm

[jammer]

Remember in 1995, after the Republican revolution, one of the first things the new House did after being sworn in (and in the midst of the Contract with America thing) was to try to pass a blatantly unconstitutional law violating the fourth amendment--as I recall, it was on the drug war.

[Doctor Doom]

It's okay. The gub'mint will protect you. And there's nowhere safer than a room with iron bars on the windows. :)

[jammer]

Aspirin won't do it. He's probably one of those new federally employed dropouts hired to "work" at rousting us in airports.

[jammer]

Great info. Thanks.

[William Terrell]

I get that an emergency or war is a flakey time. The balance between liberty and security is fluid owing to the apparant need for more security. On the one hand I want potential terrorists from bombing me and my family (or anybody else or else's) and on the other, I want to keep government forces caged. How far should those forces be let out?

This is a time when statist elements can shift potential power to the legislative and executive areas they control. Once legislation is codified, amendments can aim it in any direction.

This legislation has a carrot, rounding up Islamics, made fat and jucy by the prevailing mood. The circumstances made it passable without scrutiny and executable immediately. Just that is odious. Much as I would like to mop up Islamic terrorists, I getting the feeling I'm getting a Ugo with a carbomb for a Cadillac price.

I just hope the effect of the populance arming itself was a total surprise. But I'm afraid that any mention of that passive threat can be discredited using the spirit of that very legislation.

Too many lines intersecting at one point for may taste.

[WRhine]

The real deal breaker for me on the Patriot Act is that the administration continues to refuse to seal off our borders and insist that our immigration laws are ENFORCED. This coupled with the “no change” stance in allowing immigrants from nations that sponsor terrorism to come in here, like they did before 9/11, on their BS visas is TOO MUCH to take. Bush & Co. have got it all wrong. We should be deporting the illegals, sealing our borders and blocking entry to those coming from terrorist nations before WE GIVE UP OUR FREEDOMS. Bush disappoints me more every day.

[goldilucky]

"HR 3162 - USA PATRIOT ACT This is a searchable copy. You can also go to www.google.com and search on "Patriot Act". You will find numerous reviews of the law by various law firms."

Excellent! Did you know that Arturo Gonzalez who sits as counsel to the White House for Bush Jr. was also affiliated with the Enron matter? Judicial Watch sent me an email site where he is mentioned as keeping close ties to Enron. That's just damning!

[Sandy]

is there any info you have about secret warrants pertaining to the so-called "Patriot Act"? How does one find out about that?

Are you looking for the particular section of the bill? If so, here you go (scroll down to Section 213, Authority for Delaying Notice of the Execution of a Warrant).