Posted on 05/18/2005 5:58:44 PM PDT by wagglebee
The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is working on a bill that would renew the Patriot Act and expand government powers in the name of fighting terrorism, letting the FBI subpoena records without permission from a judge or grand jury.
Much of the debate in Congress has concerned possibly limiting some of the powers in the anti-terrorism law passed 45 days after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
But the measure being written by Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., would give the FBI new power to issue administrative subpoenas, which are not reviewed by a judge or grand jury, for quickly obtaining records, electronic data or other evidence in terrorism investigations, according to aides for the GOP majority on the committee who briefed reporters Wednesday.
Recipients could challenge the subpoenas in court and the Bush administration would have to report to Congress twice a year exactly how it was using this investigatory power, the aides said.
The administration has sought this power for two years, but so far been rebuffed by lawmakers. It is far from certain that Congress will give the administration everything it wants this year.
Roberts' planned bill also would make it easier for prosecutors to use special court-approved warrants for secret wiretaps and searches of suspected terrorists and spies in criminal cases, the committee aides said.
Eight expiring sections of the law that deal with foreign intelligence investigations would become permanent, they said.
So, too, would a provision that authorizes wiretapping of suspected terrorists who operate without clear ties to a particular terrorist network.
The aides spokes on condition of anonymity because Roberts has yet to make public the bill's contents.
Opponents of expanding the Patriot Act said Roberts' proposal would amount to an expansive wish list for the administration.
"While we're fighting to bring provisions ... back into balance with the Bill of Rights, here we have the intelligence committee moving to give the government more power outside the judicial system to gain access to records of Americans," said former GOP Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia, a critic of the law.
Lisa Graves, the American Civil Liberties Union's senior counsel for legislative strategy, said the new subpoena power would "be a dramatic expansion of secret search powers."
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other administration officials have been adamant that the expiring provisions become permanent, with few changes.
They also have pushed for the administrative subpoena power, which they say prosecutors already are using in health care fraud and other criminal cases.
Justice Department officials have been consulted on the legislation and offered technical advice, department spokesman Kevin Madden said.
"The Department of Justice appreciates that the Senate Intelligence Committee has signaled their intention to support provisions that enhance law enforcement's ability to combat terrorism effectively," Madden said.
Committee aides said the committee planned to meet in private when it considers the bill because the discussions would involve intelligence operations.
Barr said he was distressed that the committee "would do something like this in secret."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., the panel's senior Democrat, has not said publicly whether he would support the entire bill that Roberts was working on or seek changes.
IMHO, this is clearly unconstitutional.
Agreed. If they need the subpoena in a hurry, they can call the judge at night and get him out of bed and make their case.
I don't think extending IRS powers to the FBI is a good idea, unless they are sunsetted.
"or other evidence in terrorism investigations"
Oh. Are they going to rewrite the law to actually be limited to terrorism investigations, or are they just going to pretend it is so limited like they did the first time?
"Recipients could challenge the subpoenas in court and the Bush administration would have to report to Congress twice a year exactly how it was using this investigatory power, the aides said."
Oh, make a "report." I feel safe with that.
< /sarcasm>
Agreed. Yet another reason no viable political party has my vote at the moment.
This is like with the wiretaps. Any time, day or night, a judge is available to sign-off on anything as long as it is legitimate. When powers like this are granted, it would seem that the real reason is to execute subpoenas and other warrents that the government doesn't believe they would be able to convince a judge was valid.
When you read this stuff, keep it all in perspective. Remember:
The "Security Check" at the airport is for your safety, to make sure no terrorists get on, it is not an unreasonable search and siezure.
It may be hard to remember this when you are arrested for some form of contraband. Rock stars' dope comes to mind. Marijuana is clearly the weapon of choice for terrorist hijackers.
Remember "DUI" checkpoints are a special case to check for drunk drivers. They are not unreasonable search and siezure. It may be hard to remember this when you get arrested for not remembering your driver's license. You are a special case, too.
This is another case of a government trying to expand its span of control using the "Safety" cover.
"Those who would sacrifice lliberty for safety will soon have neither."
- Benjamin Franklin
Oh goody, I can't wait. I'm sure we'll be confiscating a lot more Whizzinators at the airport in the name of national security.
Agreed. Yet another reason no viable political party has my vote at the moment.
Agreed.
The Fourth Amendment:
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.
For some reason, I'm a little skeptical of more "anonymous" sources, and will wait to see.
I wonder how many papers will print a story like this right next to the Star Wars reviews tomorrow? Mine will.
Is anyone surprised by this? Taking away our liberties in the name of national security. I do have a question. The government may "protect" us from acts of terror by terrorist but who protects us from acts of terror from our government?
HELL NO!
I was about to flame, until I caught the sarcasm.
Are you saying that it should or shouldn't be allowed?
It needs to be as dead as Saddam's kids.
bump
I'm not going to advocate the sacrificing of any liberties...BUT...I think it's clear we WON'T have safety if we chose to keep the liberties.
A case of "cake and eatin' it"
We've come to the point where we have to chose which is more valuable - and not go weak in the knees when the loss of safety costs us a loved one.
That said, a point of order: since the 4th does not specifically say a warrent "issued by a judge"...is that not a constitutional loophole whereby the Feds can argue that they have not violated the Constitution when the use "administrative warrents"?
I'm not defending the practice, but it seems to me the language is not airtight to call it unconstitutional.
Oh, and BTW, IMO much of this results directly from the fact that our courts have become so infested with touchy-feely liberals that the law man doesn't feel he can get a fair shot at the bad guys from the judges.
If our judges had their heads on straight, a lot fewer folks in the law-enforcement community would be behind these laws.
All we really need to do is secure the borders and allow law enforcement to employ profiling.
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.