8-01-05, 8:51 am
Last week the Republican-controlled Senate voted to make permanent most of the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. But under heavy pressure from civil liberties organizations such as the ACLU and the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, about 300 local communities that passed resolutions criticizing the USA PATRIOT Act, and many conservatives on the political right fearful over the abuse of power, the Senate set four-year expiration dates on the most controversial provisions and added language guaranteeing some civil rights protections. When the new language was adopted and the expiration dates were fixed, the measure passed unanimously.
Democrats blocked a measure favored by the Bush administration that would have allowed the FBI to seek 'administrative' subpoenas that do not require a judge’s approval. Two provisions that are set to expire in four years include the so-called 'roving wiretaps' and a provision that allows federal authorities to demand private information from institutions like libraries. Civil rights protections that were added included a higher standard of proof for the government in demanding library and business records, greater judicial oversight and increased reporting to Congress on antiterrorism operations, time restrictions on the use of secret searches, and limits on roving wiretaps.
While these provisions do not adequately protect civil liberties, they do set the stage for a showdown with the House, which adopted a different bill that extended the law and put ten-year expirations on the two most controversial provisions of the original bill.
The House bill also only added minor adjustments to language of the original bill in order to give the appearance of protecting civil rights. For example, the 'sneak and peek' provisions, which allow the authorities to not tell a suspect about the execution of a search warrant, now puts a 6 month limit (with an additional 3-month extension if shown good cause). All the authorities have to do is say the case is about terrorism, but added language requires a slightly more restrictive set of conditions under which a sneak and peek warrant is allowed.
The Senate and House bills fail to address other controversial sections of the USA PATRIOT Act because they were made permanent from the beginning, such as limits on judicial oversight and provisions that chip away at the Fourth Amendment.
Several amendments to the House bill were aimed at preventing attacks on civil liberties, including Rep. Bernie Sanders's (I-VT), which was identical to his 'Freedom to Read' amendment which passed in early June with bipartisan support. Sanders’ amendment would have protected private information at libraries and bookstores from federal authorities.
The amendment failed to become law earlier because the Senate ignored it in their version of the defense authorization bill it was attached to. The Republican-dominated conference committee, which decides what becomes law when the two house fail to adopt identical bill, simply set it aside. (Conference committees are a useful bureaucratic procedure for the ruling party to reject and eliminate compromise language.)
When Sanders reintroduced his amendment during the debate of the PATRIOT Act’s extension, the Republican-controlled House committee rejected it flat out along party lines prior to the full House vote.
The list includes aggressive efforts by local and federal authorities to acquire private information from libraries in about 200 situations, and incidents where innocent individuals have had privacy and Fourth Amendment rights violated under 'sneak and peek' provisions of the PATRIOT Act.
In 153 cases where 'sneak and peek' has been used as of January, 90 percent of them were ordinary criminal investigations unrelated to terrorism. Additionally, federal authorities have asked for and received hundreds of delays in notifying a suspect of the execution of a sneak and peek warrant, in the vast majority of cases, the sole grounds for gaining such a delay has been that revelations would jeopardize the case.
Another provision of the law, the national security letter, a letter sent to an institution or service provider demanding they divulge private information on unstated grounds also requires the service provider not tell anyone of the request for information. This provision has been found unconstitutional.
In several incidents, federal authorities revoked immigration visas for people accused of supporting terrorism without evidence or grounds for doing so.
In addition to this compilation of abuses by federal authorities, a compilation that paints a picture of a highly secretive police force trampling on the Constitution, the Washington Post reports that using PATRIOT Act provisions, despite wild exaggerations made by President Bush, the government has actually only convicted a handful of people for terrorism related activities.
Most of the total number of PATRIOT Act cases (81 percent) that concluded with conviction are immigration-related cases. Most of the 39 actual 'terrorist' cases were not serious enough to warrant a prison term of more than 11 months.
Such cases could have been successfully prosecuted under pre-PATRIOT Act conditions, prompting civil liberties organization to insist that security need not come at the expense of rolling back Constitutionally protected civil rights and liberties.
Following the August congressional recess, a joint conference committee, also controlled by the Republicans will likely adopt the measures favored by the White House that were rejected by the majority of Congress. The conference committee, I predict, will reject the minor added protections and will include language that expands the power of the FBI to use the so-called administrative subpoenas that do not require a judge’s approval.
The Republican leadership is not above such backdoor legislating and bureaucratic maneuvering to get its way and to override the votes of members of Congress and the demands of the majority of the American people. They have done it before.
The Republican Party’s maneuvering over the will of public opinion and compromise in order to please their leader is evidence that party’s highly authoritarian character and willingness to strangle democracy in order to maintain power and push its agenda.
--Contact Joel Wendland at jwendland@politicalaffairs.net.
