Permanentizing the Patriot Act
The Wash Times reports on the House's vote "last night to make most provisions of the USA Patriot Act permanent." Story here.
The Times' print edition (but not on its Web site), contains a useful graphic of the act's most "contentious sections." The table lists four sections of the act and the number of times they have been used (based on ACLU and Justice Dept. documents):
Section 206, which sanctions roving wiretaps and has been used 49 times as of April;
Section 213, which allows law enforcement to do a search and notify the target after the fact and has been used 155 times as of January. The Times notes that 90 percent of the cases didn't involved terrorism-related issues, that the average delay in notifying targets was between 30 to 90 days, and that in six of the cases notification has been withheld indefinitely.
Section 215, which allows law enforcement to get records about someone from a third such as a bank or library and bars the actual target from ever knowing the search took place. This has been used 35 times as of April (though never for library records so far).
Section 505, which expands the use of National Security Letters, which allow the FBI to get records without judicial approval if the feds assert the info is "relevant" to an intelligence investigation. DOJ says they've done this but refused to discuss the matter.
Check out Reason's interview with Fox News Channel's resident civil liberties bulldog, Judge Andrew Napolitano, for more info, feedback, and acid-reflux. It's online here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Boo!
The only consolation I feel regarding this major approval of civil liberty trashing, is that one day there will be a Democratic in the executive office again, who will take and do with the Patriot Act exactly what the Clintons did with the FBI files of the Republicans back in '93.
Then, I'll just laugh my ass off at the first GOP politician I see and say, "Bet yer sorry about extending dat, ain'cha?"
The Statist Two-party Tennis Match will continue ...
FUN FACTS ABOUT THE PATRIOT ACT
by Frank J. at http://www.imao.us/archives/003533.html
I think I understand the premise: By taking away all of our freedoms, the terrorists won't have anything left to hate. Brilliant!
"Permanentizing"
Can you, like, not use that verb again?
Verbing weirds language.
Becoming increasingly cynical, I'd like to bring up two points...first, can we really trust that our lawmakers actually read the damned thing this time around? Second, the only evidence we have that the government isn't abusing their new powers is, well, the government's word. We know the government would never lie to us. They wouldn't even support a "noble lie", right? Face it, this is joe's world, we're just living in it.
Come on now, Johnny. You really don't think joe would support this stuff, do you? I see him as a liberal on financial matters (which is mostly where we disagree), but on legal and social matters I think he's on the same page as most of us here.
Let the record show this is the second time I've come to joe's defense. It may not be the last.
SPD,
After his comments in the subway search thread, I think he agrees with more of it than he would like to admit, both to us and ourselves.
Roving wiretaps are dangerous. There should be strict limits in place on their use, with judges making mandatory findings before issuing warrants, and no "national security" exceptions to providing the judge with evidence to back up the governments' assertions.
Sneak searches may be necessary for intelligence work, but nothing so gathered should be admissible in a court of law.
A judge should issue a warrant or subpoena to authorize the mandatory disclosure of records. None of this "administrative subpoena" bullshit. Information so gathered, and information further gathered based on that information, should be considered "fruit of the poinsoned tree."
You got me, Mo. I'm really a Trostskyite; which is to say, a Nazi sympathizer.
Heretic! Heretic! You want to put puppies in blenders!
joe,
You ought to realize that the "fruit of the poisoned tree" concept is nearly dead in the federal courts. Some state courts - like California's - still take it seriously though.
Well, I was writing about what should be, not what is.
I never said you were a Trotskyite, but you seem quite willing to sacrifice freedom for security.
joe,
For someone that rails on libertarians for being utopians that are detatched for reality, you are also ignoring the reality of the situation. I'm sure the provisions in the PATRIOT Act would garner more support in these parts if they were limited to terrorism and only terrorism. However, you, I, Julian, and everyone else knows that neither that PATRIOT Act nor the subway searches will be limited to terrorism (heck, they won't even be primarily used against it).
Mo,
Your statements are borne out by the use of USA PATRIOT Act provisions to go after Michael Gilardi here in Las Vegas for buying influence with the county commission. I.e., it's already been used for non-terrorism related crimes.
Shawn,
That's not the only example. H&R has posted at least a half dozen instances where it was used on a bunch of silly crimes as well as the WoD
joe,
Well, what should be isn't at issue.
mo,
Well, as PATRIOT is merely an extension of FISA (1978) it shouldn't be surprising that it is applied to non-terrorist related issues.
Actually, Haklyut, Mo made a statement about what I "would like," so I addressed that.