Posted on 12/13/2005 5:51:31 AM PST by RWR8189
THIS WEEK, Congress considers legislation extending the implementation of the U.S.A. Patriot Act. Understandably, the debate surrounding the bill is fraught with emotion.
At issue, however, is whether the proposed changes take appropriate steps to protect the civil liberties of innocent Americans. I believe they do not. Given the importance of these individual freedoms, I cannot support the bill in its current form.
Ultimately, this debate is about police powers — powers granted by the people to government — and the balance we strike between these forceful tools and the rights of individuals.
Provisions written into the Constitution and in laws are designed to protect the innocent, defend against abuse and ensure the perpetuation of individual liberty no matter who holds the reins of power in the executive, legislative or judicial branches of government. Thus, evidence must be shown to obtain a search warrant; we have a right to face an accuser; and when wrongly prosecuted, we can appeal our case to court. These are the specific and fundamental rights at issue as we consider extending the Patriot Act.
As originally written, the Patriot Act created and/or expanded two specific types of subpoena power for federal authorities: The first, a "215 order," allows the confiscation of any business or library records believed to be relevant to a terrorism investigation; the second, National Security Letters (NSLs) — issued without the approval of a judge — allow the government to compel businesses to provide access to a broad range of financial information.
As dramatic as these powers may be, I do not oppose their creation or extension. It is essential, however, that Americans are given the fair opportunity to appeal these orders and their accompanying "gag order" before a judge.The Patriot Act fails to provide for meaningful judicial review of NSLs.
Furthermore, the proposed bill provides no judicial review of the automatic, permanent "gag order" that accompanies a "215 order."
Establishing reasonable standards of evidence and allowing judicial review of subpoenas and "gag orders" does not threaten anyone's security.
John Sununu is the junior U.S. senator from New Hampshire.
Correct. To argue otherwise renders the Republican Party suspect.
Sounds reasonable to me on the face of it.
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.