There is a fairly good chance that the U.S. Patriot Act may be extended (see title link above). This is an alarming development. Our civil liberties and privacy are in jeopardy if this happens.
According to ABC News & the AP,
Key Republicans from the House and Senate reached a White House-backed compromise Thursday to renew the broad powers granted to law enforcement agencies in the days after the 2001 terrorist attacks on American soil.
"SmokeyMonkey" at Daily Kos posted a link with the text of the proposal.
There is continued opposition to the bill. Senator Russ Feingold has threatened a filibuster; Josh Marshall reports that Senator F. will be guest blogging about this next week on TPM Cafe. Senator Patrick Leahy has demanded changes to the bill. According to the above AP article,
Leahy held a news conference where he and other Democrats urged Republicans to agree to a three-month extension of the existing law, to give time to consider a longer-term measure. "This is too important to the American people to rush through a flawed bill to meet some deadline that we have the ability to extend," he said.
Included below is an extensive quote from a statement available from Senator Leahy's office:
Inadequte Checks on National Security Letters (NSLs):
*The report contains no sunset on National Security Letter (NSL) authorities, despite recent revelations about the use of these authorities to spy on innocent Americans.
*The conference report does not provide meaningful judicial review of an NSL’s gag order. Under current law, the recipient of an NSL can challenge the NSL in court. The conference report changes that by requiring the court to accept as conclusive the government’s assertion that a gag order should not be lifted, unless the court determines the government is acting in bad faith.
*The conference report allows the government to use secret evidence to oppose a judicial challenge to an NSL. At the government’s request, the court must review any government submission in secret, whether or not it contains classified material.
*The conference report fails to protect the records of innocent Americans collected by means of an NSL. Such records may be kept forever in government databases, shared with the intelligence
community, and used for datamining.
Inadequate Checks on FISA Court Orders For Tangible Things (Section 215)
*Unlike the Senate bill, the conference report allows the government to obtain sensitive personal information on a mere showing of “relevance,” striking the three-part test that was the basis of the
Senate compromise. This allows the government to obtain this formation without being required to convince a judge that the records they seek have some connection to a suspected terrorist or spy.
*Unlike the Senate bill, the conference report does not permit the recipient of a Section 215 order to challenge its automatic, permanent gag order. Courts have held that similar restrictions violate the First Amendment. The recipient of a Section 215 order would not be entitled to meaningful judicial review of the gag order under the current version of the report.
*The conference reports allows the government to use secret evidence to oppose a judicial challenge to a Section 215 order. At the government's request, the court must review any government submission in secret, whether or not it contains classified material.
In simpler terms, according to Senator Leahy, "National Security Letters are, in effect, a form of secret administrative subpoena. They are issued by FBI agents, without any court supervision, and recipients are prohibited from telling anyone that they have been served. The conference report does not provide meaningful judicial review of an NSL’s gag order. It requires the court to accept as conclusive the government’s assertion that a gag order should not be lifted, unless the court determines the government is acting in bad faith."
Senator Leahy also opposes the continued inclusion of the so-called "library provision" in Section 215. "As it stands, the government can compel the production of business records merely upon a showing that the records were 'relevant' to a terrorism investigation," concludes Senator Leahy.
The ACLU site has further information about these issues.
Tags: Patriot Act Senator Patrick Leahy civil liberties right to privacy
No comments:
Post a Comment