Sensenbrenner wants answers on act; He threatens to subpoena Ashcroft to get details...

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ^

[RCW2001]

Sensenbrenner wants answers on act

He threatens to subpoena Ashcroft to get details on antiterror measure

By STEVE SCHULTZE
of the Journal Sentinel staff

U.S. Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner said Monday he'll play hardball with Attorney General John Ashcroft over a congressional demand for detailed information about the Patriot Act, the post-Sept. 11 law giving the government broad powers to investigate terrorism.

Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) said he would "start blowing a fuse" unless Ashcroft's Justice Department gives answers by Labor Day week to 50 written questions about the act raised by the House Judiciary Committee in June.

If the committee still doesn't have the answers by then, Sensenbrenner said, he may take the unusual step of issuing a subpoena to Ashcroft to force him to testify before the Judiciary Committee, which Sensenbrenner heads. He noted that the department already has missed two deadlines issued earlier by Congress for answering the questions.

"I've never signed a subpoena in my five and a half years as chairman. I guess there's a first time for everything," Sensenbrenner said during a session with Journal Sentinel reporters and editors.

The 50 questions about the Patriot Act from both Republican and Democratic committee members include how many times the Justice Department has obtained wiretaps and other devices that can track a suspect's phone calls and e-mails. Another question asks what protections are in place to ensure that expanded seizure powers don't violate constitutional freedoms.

"I expect to have that done because it is legitimate oversight" by Congress, Sensenbrenner said.

The act, passed overwhelmingly by Congress and signed into law by President Bush on Oct. 26, expands the definition of terrorism, increases penalties for terrorist activities and eases government restrictions on investigation and detention of foreigners suspected of terrorism.

The issue has roused the passions of civil libertarians and lawmakers of both parties, although the general public and his own constituents haven't expressed much interest, Sensenbrenner said.

The subpoena threat isn't the only weapon Sensenbrenner is wielding.

Sensenbrenner said he told Ashcroft during a summer social event: "Look, there's a sunset in the Patriot Act. If you want to play 'I've got a secret,' good luck getting the Patriot Act extended. Because if you've got a bipartisan anger in the Congress, the sunset will come and go and the Patriot Act disappears."

The act automatically expires in late 2005 unless Congress votes to extend it.

A Justice Department spokesman could not be reached for comment Monday.

Sensenbrenner's tiff with Ashcroft includes an exchange in May in which Sensenbrenner canceled a scheduled Judiciary Committee appearance by Ashcroft when the attorney general failed to follow committee protocol by properly submitting written copies of his planned testimony two days in advance.

Ashcroft did send an e-mail late the night before his scheduled Judiciary Committee appearance, but the message said it wasn't to be shared with committee members, Sensenbrenner said.

"Apparently this is the first time ever that a committee chairman has canceled a hearing with a cabinet officer," Sensenbrenner said.

On a related matter, he said he doesn't favor blanket release of the names of the foreign detainees arrested since the act went into effect. A judge should make the decision on a case-by-case basis with the burden on the government to prove secrecy was necessary, Sensenbrenner said.

The issue is pending before a federal appeals court.

He said Congress should clarify under what circumstances the president may detain suspected foreign terrorists, another civil liberties issue raised over the al-Qaida detainees being held at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"You can't make a blanket statement on this," Sensenbrenner said. "You are dealing with people who slink around in the shadows." He suggested a new law clarifying the president's authority but declined to specify what he thought the law should say.

[Old philosopher]

It is nice to know that there are still a few Congressmen who believe in the Constitution.

Let's hope that Sensenbrenner sticks to his guns and we take back some of our liberty.

[serinde]

"I expect to have that done because it is legitimate oversight" by Congress

Kudos to this guy for asking these questions, but it's a little late. If they had done their work in the first place and read the thing before voting on it, they wouldn't be in this fix. As it is, they gave the govt. a blank check and are just now wondering exactly what they gave away.

[NeoCaveman]

Sensenbrenner said he told Ashcroft during a summer social event: "Look, there's a sunset in the Patriot Act. If you want to play 'I've got a secret,' good luck getting the Patriot Act extended. Because if you've got a bipartisan anger in the Congress, the sunset will come and go and the Patriot Act disappears."

The act automatically expires in late 2005 unless Congress votes to extend it.

I didn't know that the Patriot Act sunsets in 2005. This makes me less worried about it. I salute Sensenbrenner for wanting to do the appropriate oversight, hopeful Ashcroft cooperates.

[SGCOS]

The act automatically expires in late 2005 unless congress votes to extend it.

Contrary to the yearly salary increase for members of congress, which is automatically extended unless congress votes to expire it.

[jenny65]

The act automatically expires in late 2005 unless Congress votes to extend it.

Bullsh|t. Some of the most unconstitutional and draconian provisions of the act, such as sneak n peek, have no sunset. They're permanent. I really wish these people would get it right.

Screw subpoenaing(?) Ashcroft. If Sensenbrenner really had some cajones, he'd start the process of REPEALING the Patriot Act right now.

[RJCogburn]

Ashcroft remains a sanctimonious fraud and a dangerous man.

[FreeReign]

Bullsh|t. Some of the most unconstitutional and draconian provisions of the act, such as sneak n peek, have no sunset. They're permanent. I really wish these people would get it right.

We all need to get it right. How do you know what does and does not sunset in the Patriot Act?

[metalbird1]

A Petition for the...

"Immediate and Total Repeal of the USA/Patriot ACT"

To: U.S. Congress

We, the undersigned, hereby declare that anti-terrorism legislation passed by our US Congress since the tragic and murderous September 11, 2001 attacks on our nation, seriously damage and infringe upon the constitutional protections that are enshrined in our Bill of Rights.

We declare that it is not patriotic, but rather Un-American to destroy the very freedoms which cause Americans to love their country.

We declare that open government is critical to democracy and that by imposing new levels of secrecy our government appears less trustworthy and lessens the people’s ability to make informed decisions about government.

We declare that lessening the strength of the judicial and legislative branches of our government, while simultaneously giving completely unlimited powers to the executive branch does damage to our American principle of separation of powers.

We oppose the use of secret military tribunals at which a person is afforded no independent defense counsel and could be sentenced to die and executed without the knowledge and approval of the American people.

We oppose the president’s orders to lock down presidential records, thus denying our ability to judge the actions of the executive.

We oppose the indefinite imprisonment of foreign nationals if no criminal charge has been placed against them. We further oppose the holding of any person without publicly declaring the crime they are charged with.

We oppose the “sneak and peek” provision of the PATRIOT Act, which crushes our 4th amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure by denying citizens their right to be aware that their property is to be searched and their right to protest such search if the warrant is out of order.

We oppose the collection of private business records by order of secret courts and the muzzling of those citizens who receive such orders from speaking publicly about them. This is a violation of both the 1st and 4th amendments.

We oppose the PATRIOT Act’s destruction of e-mail and Internet privacy. In addition, the sharing of such data indiscriminately among any number of government agencies and even foreign governments is patently intolerable.

For these reasons, we demand the immediate repeal of the PATRIOT Act. We call upon our elected representatives to act in accordance with the Constitution of the United States and to undo these actions which violate the core principles of America.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned


[View Current Signatures (in link)]

http://www.petitiononline.com/sabene/petition.html

[metalbird1]

Sensenbrenner says no one cares except some
libertarians & a few lawmakers.
Is he just putting on a show or is that the
reporter's spin, or both?

[metalbird1]

Guess it's my turn to buy.
What's everyone having?

[dcwusmc]

BUMP for unanswered questions...

[metalbird1]

RSVP by Christmas.

[rubbertramp]

Hitler used to say that people had as many rights as they were willing to fight for....guess that about sums it up.

[Askel5]

Perhaps a round of MindErasers ... like they've been drinking in DC all these years.

[jenny65]

FreeReign,

All I've done is read the thing myself. Let me emphasize that I'm not a law expert. However, here's a decent analysis of it. At the very bottom, they list what does and what doesn't sunset:
EFF Analysis Of The Provisions Of The USA PATRIOT Act That Relate To Online Activities (Oct 31, 2001)

The article only discusses the provisions related to computers, phone taps, etc. I might be able to find a better article that discusses everything, but I've spent too much time at work writing this already.

Here's where you can read the full text of the Patriot Act:
USA PATRIOT ACT

Most of it is impossible to make sense of without having the U.S Code to compare it to. In any event, here's the Sunset section:

SEC. 224. SUNSET.

(a) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subsection (b), this title and the amendments made by this title (other than sections 203(a), 203(c), 205, 208, 210, 211, 213, 216, 219, 221, and 222, and the amendments made by those sections) shall cease to have effect on December 31, 2005.

(b) EXCEPTION- With respect to any particular foreign intelligence investigation that began before the date on which the provisions referred to in subsection (a) cease to have effect, or with respect to any particular offense or potential offense that began or occurred before the date on which such provisions cease to have effect, such provisions shall continue in effect.

Section 213 (in bold above) is the sneak and peek:

SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.

Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `In addition'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(b) DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--

`(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);

`(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and

`(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'.

That's just one of the exceptions to the sunset. I'm not against all of the provisions in the Act, but section 213 blatantly violates the Fourth Amendment. "Delayed Notice" is just a clever way to try to get around it.

[metalbird1]

"Perhaps a round of MindErasers ... like they've been drinking in DC all these years."
-------
Heh, heh, doesn't work on me.
I take mine with a ginkgo shooter.
Wazzup in Nawlins?