|
Patriot act powers infringe Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://www.thehill.com/050102/patriot.shtmhttp://www.thehill.com/050102/patriot.shtm
MAY 1, 2002
USA Patriot Act powers prompt second look
By Noelle Straub
Secret court subpoenas, examinations of bookstore records, revised immigration policies and other uses of sweeping new powers have some Senate Democrats taking a new critical look at the USA Patriot Act, enacted in the aftermath of Sept. 11.
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), the lone senator to vote against the measure last fall, has been its most vocal critic, warning that the act infringes on constitutional freedoms.
“I would cast the same vote today, but even more confidently, as we see how law enforcement is beginning to use the new powers in the bill and how the Department of Justice has proceeded on a variety of fronts not directly addressed in the bill,” he said last week.
But Feingold is not alone in his concerns. He has been joined by other Democratic senators, including Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (Vt.), Richard Durbin (Ill.) and Maria Cantwell (Wash.).
The act was hurriedly signed into law with overwhelming approval within six weeks of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington — without hearings or without being marked up by a congressional committee.
Particularly troubling to Feingold is a business records provision that gives the FBI new powers to subpoena records in its investigations of international terrorism.
“The subpoenas are obtained from a secret court, and the records sought don’t even have to be records directly connected to a suspect in such an investigation,” Feingold noted.
“We now know that bookstores and libraries have received such subpoenas asking for the purchase or lending records of their patrons. It is a truly frightening day in America when bookstores are considering destroying their records so when the government comes knocking at the door to find out what their customers have been reading they will have nothing to turn over,” he said.
Feingold and Rep. Patsy Mink (D-Hawaii) joined a coalition of groups to talk about infringements on constitutional freedoms in the wake of the act.
Feingold told The Hill that he might hold hearings to examine the issue, but that he was not yet ready to announce his plans.
Durbin said he too has concerns about the way the law has been implemented.
“I’ve contacted the FBI and INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service]
about specific cases that I thought were unfair,” he said. “And, in most instances, they have responded quickly. I think that there was clearly a quick effort to try to apprehend suspicious people, and the net was thrown in a way that it brought in too many. I hope that we can learn from this experience and protect our country without endangering our liberties.”
As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Leahy led the negotiations on the Patriot Act with the Bush administration. He warned at the time that vigorous congressional oversight would be needed.
In the months following the act’s passage, Leahy brought Justice Department officials, including Attorney General John Ashcroft, before the panel. He has followed up with numerous oversight letters to the department asking specific questions about the implementation of the bill’s provisions.
Leahy’s concerns also include broader administration plans to combat terrorism, such as an executive order allowing noncitizens to be tried by military tribunals and the lack of information released on detainees in the Sept. 11 investigation.
Senate Judiciary Committee member Cantwell said the combination of executive orders and the Patriot Act “blurred the line” between the laws governing criminal procedures and foreign intelligence gathering. “I think we have to be on our toes about that,” she said.
Cantwell added that she is worried about the Justice Department’s decision to allow the government to listen in on attorney-client communications in certain cases.
“I’ve heard discussion of it on some of the talk shows in our state, that they were concerned about those provisions,” she said. “Attorneys [were] calling in and saying that that information, their private conversations between them and their client, is being gathered.”
But Cantwell stopped short of calling for amending the law. “I think now it’s just a matter of doing our job and staying on top of it, and seeing how it’s being implemented and then making a decision,” she said.
Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), another member of the committee, said he has heard anecdotal stories about misuse of the act. But he added that there’s a need for more concrete evidence about what’s actually happening.
“I just think we have to continue to monitor it very closely because of the broad powers we gave in that act, which I supported. I think we have to stay on top of it and make sure there are no abuses,” he said.
However, several fellow committee Democrats have not joined in the criticism.
“I think we’re in a very difficult time where our national security is threatened,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). “I think before people rush to judgment on the Patriot Act we ought to have a substantial period of time to let it sort itself out.”
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) characterized the administration’s use of the act as “so far, so good,” adding: “I think by the time it got through Congress, it was a balanced act, making us more secure, but at the same time not going overboard, and I think it’s working pretty well.”
|
|
