Expansion of Patriot Act Criticized; Would Increase Spying, Restrict Data, Limit Judicial Review

Associated Press ^

[RCW2001]

Critics Say Justice's Planned Expansion of Patriot Act Would Increase Spying, Restrict Data

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON Feb. 7 —

The Justice Department is preparing to expand the 2001 Patriot Act to increase surveillance within the United States while restricting access to information and limiting judicial review, a nonprofit government watchdog group asserted Friday.

The Center for Public Integrity said it obtained a copy of the draft legislation from a government source. The document, labeled "confidential," was posted Friday on the organization's Internet site along with an analysis.

Justice Department officials said no final decisions have made on any such legislation, and it could change substantially before it is completed. Spokeswoman Barbara Comstock acknowledged the department is "continually considering anti-terrorism measures and would be derelict if we were not doing so."

"The department's deliberations are always undertaken with the strongest commitment to our Constitution and civil liberties," she added.

The original Patriot Act, passed by Congress in the weeks following the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, gave the government broad new anti-terrorism powers to use wiretaps, electronic and computer eavesdropping, searches and the authority to obtain a wide range of other information in it's investigations. It also broke down the traditional wall between FBI investigators and intelligence agents.

According to the Center for Public Integrity, the draft expansion of the Patriot Act would be called the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003.

Among other things, it would prohibit disclosure of information regarding people detained as terrorist suspects and prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from distributing "worst-case scenario" information to the public about a nearby private company's use of chemicals.

In addition, the measure would create a DNA database of "suspected terrorists;" force suspects to prove why they should be released on bail, rather than have the prosecution prove why they should be held; and allow the deportation of U.S. citizens who become members of or help terrorist groups.

"It really is a broadening and a deepening of the government's powers," Lewis said.

Congressional aides said they had not been consulted by the Justice Department on the development of such a bill. However, several have said they considered it likely that the Bush administration would propose some changes this year.

On the Net: Center for Public Integrity:

Justice Department:

[AdamSelene235]

Give them a mile, and they'll keep taking inches.

[EBUCK]

The department's deliberations are always undertaken with the strongest commitment to our Constitution and civil liberties," she added.

ROTFFLMGDAO.......

[philman_36]

The Justice Department is preparing to expand the 2001 Patriot Act to increase surveillance within the United States while restricting access to information and limiting judicial review, a nonprofit government watchdog group asserted Friday.
Was there anyone who actually thought the Justice Department wouldn't expand the Patriot Act?
Since there is apparent "surprise" at this action I guess there were.
"Surprise, surprise, surprise."

[GhostofWCooper]

"I (state your name), do hereby swear (hand on the Bible) to protect the Constitution of the United States, from all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

LOL!

[Sparta]

But, I thought we were making inroads against terrorism.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Expansion of Patriot Act Criticized  

Friday, February 07, 2003 6:17 p.m. ET

The Justice Department is preparing to expand the 2001 Patriot Act to increase surveillance within the United States while restricting access to information and limiting judicial review, a nonprofit government watchdog group asserted Friday.

The Center for Public Integrity said it obtained a copy of the draft legislation from a government source. The document, labeled "confidential," was posted Friday on the organization's Internet site along with an analysis.

Justice Department officials said no final decisions have made on any such legislation, and it could change substantially before it is completed. Spokeswoman Barbara Comstock acknowledged the department is "continually considering anti-terrorism measures and would be derelict if we were not doing so." "The department's deliberations are always undertaken with the strongest commitment to our Constitution and civil liberties," she added.

The original Patriot Act, passed by Congress in the weeks following the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, gave the government broad new anti-terrorism powers to use wiretaps, electronic and computer eavesdropping, searches and the authority to obtain a wide range of other information in it's investigations. It also broke down the traditional wall between FBI investigators and intelligence agents.

According to the Center for Public Integrity, the draft expansion of the Patriot Act would be called the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003.

Among other things, it would prohibit disclosure of information regarding people detained as terrorist suspects and prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from distributing "worst-case scenario" information to the public about a nearby private company's use of chemicals.

In addition, the measure would create a DNA database of "suspected terrorists;" force suspects to prove why they should be released on bail, rather than have the prosecution prove why they should be held; and allow the deportation of U.S. citizens who become members of or help terrorist groups. "It really is a broadening and a deepening of the government's powers," said Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity.

Congressional aides said they had not been consulted by the Justice Department on the development of such a bill and department officials say it has not been transmitted to Capitol Hill. However, several aids have said they considered it likely that the Bush administration would propose some changes this year.

Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said the legislation "turns the Bill of Rights completely on its head."

"This draft bill constitutes yet another egregious blow to our citizens' civil liberties," Conyers said. "Among other things, the Bush administration now wants to imprison suspects before they are tried and create DNA databases of lawful residents who have committed no crime." ___

Associated Press writer Jesse Holland contributed to this report.

On the Net: Center for Public Integrity:

http://www.publicintegrity.org

Justice Department: http://www.usdoj.gov

[rface]

ROTFFLMGDAO.......

you can say that again!

[dcwusmc]

BUMP for a RETURN to our Constitution and the Republic for which it stood...

[lonewacko_dot_com]

This page has a link to the 12Meg PDF file with the full text.

[Black Agnes]

So much for sunsetting the bad bits of the PA.

[billbears]

Among other things, it would prohibit disclosure of information regarding people detained as terrorist suspects

Well we all know there's a precedent gentlemen. I'm at a complete loss for words. Now they can claim you're a terrorist, lock you up, never release your name, and poof you're gone.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[alexandria]

The department's deliberations are always undertaken with the strongest commitment to our Constitution and civil liberties," she added.
ROTFFLMGDAO......

Actually I belive and agree with every word of that statement.

After all she did say "The department's deliberations are always undertaken with the strongest commitment to our Constitution and civil liberties,"
Infrence the "department" and you can see that "the department" seems to be the only ones HAVING any civil liberties.

[WhiteGuy]

"Seig Heil" Alert

[Greybird]

Well we all know there's a precedent gentlemen. I'm at a complete loss for words. Now they can claim you're a terrorist, lock you up, never release your name, and poof you're gone.

Yes, we now see the Department of "Justice" falling to the level of the Argentinian generals, who "disappeared" thousands of enemies of that particular State. Americans helped expose that particular travesty. Who will expose it when this happens to us?

[Timesink]

I don't think they'll get this. I think this is one of those mental games where they're proposing all sorts of outlandish crap so that they can can later "be willing to give up" all the crazy parts in conference in order to get the one or two little things they really want.

And if I am wrong, I think this will be voted down. It just goes too far, even for most Republicans.

[mhillclimber]

I'm growing sick to my stomach with this administrations secretive nature and deceipt. We are the backbone of the Republican Party. Ignore the people and they shall ignore you.

Another Republican had best step up to the plate for 2004, or I may be forced to vote Democrat.

[GeekDejure]

ROTFFLMGDAO.......

Sheeesh. . . some guys have all the luck.

You're blessesd with a delightful FF. . . but I'm stuck with Cheap Carpeting !!! :-))

[Gore_ War_ Vet]

Nothing to see here. Move along!

Download it here. 12 Meg

This bill will hit the floor after the attack on Iraq and our "patriots" in DC will pass it quickly.

It would seem the Justice Dept. and Bush Admin. think that due process and the Constitution make it too difficult to "protect" us from the enemies of this country.

IIRC its been over a year since the USSC reaffirmed the First Amendment right to protest on the US Capitol steps which we noted at the time but have never tested.

Not for CFR. Not for the "Patriot Act". Will we still have that right when Hillary is President, or will FreeRepublic.com be classified as a domestic terrorist organization?

As you know IMO cheerleading the coming attack on Iraq in the the face of the assualts on the Constitution by our leaders is short sighted and equates to:

Nero fiddling while rome burned.

The enemy amongst us is always more dangerous then the current enemy du jour.

Just because we elect them doesn't mean we're winning. Time is running out.

[Jimmy Valentine's brother]

Thanks for the ping. I thought the DC Chapter was going to consider taking a position on this.

[FreeTheHostages]

I disagree that there's anything unconstitutional in the Patriot Act.

I've heard a lot of handwringing that it will violate constitutional rights and due process, but frankly I see nothing in it that does so.

A lot of good legal conservatives agree with me, including Victoria Toensig.

The first question of due process is what process is "due." No one is "free" from a lawful investigation pursuant to the warrant requirement, for example. You have to use the words of the constitutional, not what your "gut" is telling you, to persuade me this is wrong.

I think the Department of Justice is doing a good job.

[FreeTheHostages]

According to the Center for Public Integrity

BWAH-HAH-HAH-HAH

I am now *so* not worried.

[kako]

I disagree that there's anything unconstitutional in the Patriot Act.

Have you read the entire Patriot Act?

[FreeTheHostages]

force suspects to prove why they should be released on bail, rather than have the prosecution prove why they should be held; and allow the deportation of U.S. citizens who become members of or help terrorist groups

1. No one can be arrested without probable cause. So if the Congress switches, for arrests for terrorism on probable cause, the burden to defendants to show why they shouldn't be a risk -- that will necessarily be after the gov't has made a lawful arrest. So that first clause is highly deceptive liberal spin. Various burden-shifting occurs in bail statutes ALL THE TIME and is totally lawful. E.g., if you're arrested for 1st degree (premeditated) murder here in DC, all these presumptions that you're dangerous automatically kick in. Courts have said over and over again this violates no constitutional provisions. Period.

2. Deportation of citizens who become members of terrorist groups -- THIS IS AN EXAMPLE YOU CITE OF MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BEING VIOLATED?!! This is paranoia on your part. Period.

There are some people who are knee-jerk government bashers, even when the gov't is doing the one thing that all good conservatives should agree it should do: its national defense work. Don't be one of these. Don't wait for some liberal leak of what supposedly will happen. Wait and see if there's a bill and look at it with an open mind.

There are so many posts in this thread indicating alarm. Not one of them show any constitutional violation even being contemplated. One of the things conservatives should always do is be better informed than the liberals. "Unconstitutional" does not mean "I don't like it," which seems to be what passes for the definition of "unconstitutional" some days here at Free Republic.

Still love ya, Gore_War, but there are my 2 cents.

[squirt]

I agree but the only thing that bothers me is if we have another President like clinton.

[FreeTheHostages]

I'm aware of all its provisions and I'm also aware that there's no provision that a court of last appeal has yet declared unconstitutional.

Lots of armchair lawyers in this place.

As Mark Levin and Victoria Toensig and lots of other actual lawyers who are conservatives say, it's a good law.

[FreeTheHostages]

Victoria Toensig said at CPAC, and Mark Levin said it on Free Republic Radio (an interview broadcast this last Wednesday):

You can't say "I won't let the gov't defend me because what if the Clintons were in charge." You *have* to give the gov't power to deport terrorists, for example. Sure, absolutely, someone like the Clintons would abuse that power. But that's not a reason not to exercise it. You have to defend the nation. And then the courts have to protect and ensure that the gov't uses its power lawfully.

I understand that good conservatives don't want the gov't to have too much power. But this is national defense we're talking about. This IS a gore governmental function. And for all the handwringing I've seen on this site, I've not seen any actual legal evidence that Attorney General Ashcroft has less of a respect for the Constitution than we all do.

If our standard for gov't action for national defense, our test, was "don't let the gov't do if Hilary could get ahold of the button," we'd all already be dead. I absolutely appreciate the concern. But Hilary can't be the limiting principle. Are we supposed to eliminate the FBI because she had the FBI files? (Some here I realize would say yes.)

Sen. Ashcroft was a great senator, and he's now a great Attorney General. And one of the most conservative ones. And, if I may, a great deal brighter than Meese. General Ashcroft won't do this wrong. I'd trust what he might actual propose to the Congress for amendments some day to be constitutional, and the fact that some liberal think group has released a draft that's just internal and kicking around (and hence by definition not thoroughly vetted) surely is not a source of alarm.

[BufordP]

FTH, do you have any links where we can go to read the details? I like your take on this so far.

[FreeTheHostages]

I saw portions of it on Bill Moyer's "NOW" news program last night. (Yup, I surveil the enemy, LOL!) Someone from inside the justice department (no doubt a liberal) released a copy of a report that's not public. I saw a photo shot of the report, which was clearly marked "DRAFT." No one's proposing anything yet, in fact.

BufordP, I'd refer you to the Center for Public Integrity -- what an Orwellian name! -- but do the google search yourself because I refuse to infect my browser with such nonsense!

Now, BuP, here's a better question: when are we all going to Freep the French embassy?

[Gore_ War_ Vet]

This IS a gore governmental function.

Your slip is showing! #;o)

I'm not surprised to see you championing the nibbling or trampling of the Constitution, nor downplaying its effects in darker days down the road.

Your verbosity trumps my lack of articulation every time I really think that in light of your ferocious defence of this trash that you should post a full disclosure and standard disclaimer with it.

Wasn't it the Justice Dept. that crafted RICO, and hasn't RICO been used to prosecute peaceful non-violent protestors of abortion? No need to answer, just don't insinuate that I'm paraniod for thinking a bad law could be abused.

You're gonna take more work than I thought!

#;o)

[EBUCK]

I would agree too..

So long as we take the Klintonian approach and define "our" Constitution to mean "their" constitution detailing their right to the taking of bribes, conduction of graft, and perpetration of violence.

[af_vet_rr]

I understand that good conservatives don't want the gov't to have too much power. But this is national defense we're talking about.

I'm not going to bend over backwards for the government just because of 9/11. I didn't spend most of my adult life in the Air Force just to be turned into a coward by this government and to go along with whatever they want because it's "national defense".

There is a helluva lot more danger from my fellow Americans who think they can drink and then drive, or talk on their cell phones while driving, than from a bunch of terrrists. I will die of a heart attack or colon cancer long before a terrorist kills me.

Everyday I regret more and more voting for Bush. The alternative was no better, and so I regret that after all is said and done, we had nobody to vote on in 2000. We got the same thing no matter who won, a power hungry government who wants to keep expanding (let's not forget, the people who like to sit around at airport security gates that like gossip, file their nails and harass your grandmother are now federal employees) and keep spending our taxpayer money, while trying to scare us periodically with their alerts.

I don't see your local police department putting out alerts that somebody maybe robbed or murdered or run over tonight, but it is defintely going to happen in most major cities.

[EBUCK]

"you can say that again!"

ROTFFLMGDAO.......

[EBUCK]

Luck, LOL, it's an FF not a CC, both of which are probably terror creating materials and liable to get us sent to gitmo...luck.

[FreeTheHostages]

I didn't spend most of my adult life in the Air Force just to be turned into a coward by this government and to go along with whatever they want because it's "national defense".

That's not my main point. My main point is that there's no reason to "go along with whatever they want" here: but how about something reasonable and perfectly constitutional!? Why should *we* believe the liberal spin that our rights are being trampled. I'm a lawyer, a good one too, and I don't see anything that's cause for alarm in what the government has done so far.

You have to wonder whether it could really be true that General Ashcroft, a good conservative, has suddenly parted ways with you and me. You have to at least question the spin. No one's abolishing the warrant requirement or anything here.

And thank you for your service.

[FreeTheHostages]

championing the nibbling or trampling of the Constitution

There is -- another legally unsupported and unsupportable slur upon Attorney General Ascroft. Gore_War_Vet, that's just not what's happening. It's just not accurate. LOL, the only thing I agree with in your last post is the "verbosity" point.

[EBUCK]

Have you read it? Did you know that it allows for unwarranted searches? Does your "GUT" tell you that unwarranted searches are Constitutional?

[FreeTheHostages]

Wrong about RICO. That was Congress, all big on getting mob stuff.

I agree that RICO has to be reformed. It's not unconstitutional, but it's problematic and still erode that large area of things that we enjoy as liberties on a daily basis.

You posted stuff like look for Free Republic to be banned next. I'm just saying that the facts on the ground don't support your concern. I'm not saying I'm not for civil liberties.

I'm all for 'em. I just love 'em. I'll be right there with you posting against RICO, too: that's a very vague criminal law (albeit *not* unconstitutional).

But I love you dearly and yes you're going to have to do a LOT of work on me before you persuade me General Ashcroft's sold anyone down the river. We're lucky to have him. And you. :)

[FreeTheHostages]

Excuse me. I spent 8 years as a criminal proseuctor. I know exactly what the constitution says about searches and warrants and when you have to have one, and I'm not inclined to be tested by you on it.

Now, before and after passage of the Patriot's Act, the police could rush in under a number of exeptions, including exigent circumstances.

The Patriot's Act didn't change any of that. That's my point. For example, on a wiretap you still have to have a warrant, but now it can "rove" to different cellular phones. That doesn't erode the warrant requirement. I heard all kinds of people say that was a warrantless search, but not the lawyer kind of people: because, quite plainly, for such taps under the Patriot Act you still have to go to the court and get a warrant.

Now, there has been much talk about changing the type of judicial review over surveillance activies -- that special secret court. I don't know what DOJ is thinking about that or what that deal is. If there's anything I'd look at carefully WHEN AND IF THIS LEGISLATION IS EVER PRESENTED, it would be that section. Because I'm all for judicial review of this.

[Gore_ War_ Vet]

It's just not accurate. LOL, the only thing I agree with in your last post is the "verbosity" point.

One step at a time, how about this one?

Wasn't it the Justice Dept. that crafted RICO, and hasn't RICO been used to prosecute peaceful non-violent protestors of abortion?

[Gore_ War_ Vet]

you're way to fast for me. Forget #43 although I don't believe you're assertion that Justice had nothing to do with crafting RICO.

[FreeTheHostages]

Yes, DOJ helps to craft in at least the sense of getting input on all criminal legislation. But RICO was of particular concern to some legislators worrying about mob crime, that was the prime mover, if my memory serves. Really not sure, but that's what I thought.

Yes, I think that RICO has been used inappropriately. Charges brought up through by career prosecutors.

I'm talking about General Ashcroft and the Patriot Act. I see no problems with those things. By the way, I see only good things associated with lots of people being skeptical like you are being. Viligance is the watchword. But I think General Ashcroft is a friend and your "one step" approach doesn't take you one step toward showing any illegality in the Patriot Act.

Which, by the way, unlike RICO, doesn't spend most of its time defining new crimes. The new crimes it does define are defined in clear, well-defined language -- terrorism defined to encompass Richard Reid, and in fact so narrowly tailored that Reid's lawyers could make a passable argument he wasn't in the definition.

That's a far cry from the vague language of RICO.

So you're stepping, but I'm not sure it's in the right direction.

[BufordP]

BILL MOYERS?! SACRE BLEU!

Freeping the French:
I'm going to be pretty busy for awhile. I'll wait and see if you guys plan anything then I'll see if I can get away. Can't promise anything. Whatever we decide to do it'll be a Freep/workday for me.

[Gore_ War_ Vet]

What is the definition of domestic terrorism and how could it relate to a sucessful Whitehouse FReep.

[Jael]

Wonder what the objections would be like if CLinton Gore did something akin to this?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

ANTI-TERROR
ÜBER ALLES