Tag Archives: USA Patriot Act

Proposals to extend Patriot Act provisions advance

Leahy's proposal to extend the Patriot Act

A screen shot of Sen. Patrick Leahy's, D-Vt., bill to extend three controversial provisions of the Patriot Act until December 2013.

WASHINGTON — The Senate Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to extend three contentious Patriot Act provisions until the end of 2013, and place a sunset on another section covering the use of National Security Letters while adding oversight authority to monitor surveillance tools.

The bill is sponsored by committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and is one of several multiple-year extension proposals of the Patriot Act provisions up for debate. At the end of 2013, the provisions would “sunset” or expire.

Approved by a 10-7 vote, the legislation would extend Patriot Act authorities to use roving wiretaps on multiple electronic devices and to obtain court-approved access to business records deemed relevant to terrorist investigations.

It also would continue the authority to conduct secret surveillance of “lone wolf” terrorism suspects who are not Americans. These are alleged terrorists who don’t operate as part of al Qaeda or other terrorist groups.

The panel’s decision to sunset National Security Letters in December 2013 as well represents an attempt to appease civil liberties groups, who are frustrated by the lack of checks and balances on the provisions.

The letters have gained notoriety because they compel businesses to turn over customer records without probably cause or judicial oversight, and are often accompanied by gag orders.

Leahy said the bill strikes a balance between national security and civil liberties interests, but sunsets aren’t enough, said Michelle Richardson, legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union.

“We are not asking that they sunset, we are asking that they be amended,” Richardson said. “We’ve been asking for the same thing for 10 years—that reasonable checks and balances be put into these tools so they can no longer be used to collect information on innocent people or people who aren’t suspected of doing anything wrong.”

Richardson said the increased congressional oversight in Leahy’s extension is not a permanent solution.

“For us oversight does not take the place of substantive amendments in the law,” she said.

Whether the provisions actually would be at risk of expiring depends on whether Congress would take any further action before the deadline. That’s the catch with sunset provisions. So far the government has acted every time, keeping much of the 2001 law intact and effectively creating a sense of permanency.

Congress first reauthorized the Patriot Act with a pair of bills passed in 2005 and 2006, reasoning it was still needed to effectively fight terrorism. When the three controversial provisions came up for renewal in 2010, President Barack Obama signed a one-year extension. And before they would have expired last month, lawmakers quickly tacked on another 90-day extension.

This series of short-term extensions has kept the Patriot Act alive and most likely such extensions will continue to be approved, said Paul Rosenzweig, former deputy assistant secretary for policy in the Department of Homeland Security.

“Some in the Republican side say let’s stop doing this,” Rosenzweig said. “Let’s just get it done and make it permanent. I think that that’s a question for the debate going forward.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has introduced legislation that would extend the three expiring provisions through 2013 with no opportunity for amendment. Her proposal does not include the oversight included in Leahy’s bill.

The third major proposal is co-sponsored by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. It would permanently extend the provisions.

Meanwhile former CIA Director Michael Hayden has come out against any efforts to restrict Patriot Act provisions.

In a Washington Post opinion piece he co-authored with former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, they said, “The wall between intelligence-gathering and criminal investigation, thought before Sept. 11 to have been required by statute or the Constitution, but realized afterward to have been unnecessary, will be rebuilt.”

Leahy’s bill now goes before the entire Senate for a vote. Whatever the outcome, Rosenzweig said the Patriot Act is not dead yet.

“Reviving it in some form will happen, it’s really just a question of exactly what deal gets cut,” he said.

Tagged , , , , ,

A future with the Patriot Act

WASHINGTON – Congress and the president have extended controversial provisions of the Patriot Act for three more months while the lawmakers decide on whether to allow a more permanent expansion of roving wiretaps and other domestic surveillance.

The Obama administration said it supported renewing the provisions, which had been set to expire Feb. 28, because officials believe intelligence and law enforcement agencies need the powers to protect the country.

“Two years into the Obama administration we’re already beyond all of the controversial debates on whether the Patriot Act is OK or not,” said Michael O’Hanlon, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. But there is still the potential for a political debate on the three provisions, if not the law in its entirety.

The first provision permits the government to use roving wiretaps in terrorism cases. The taps can jump from one electronic device to another, for example a cell phone or computer rather than just being attached to one device, which in the past had been a landline phone. The second provision allows the government to access business records, such as library or bookstore records, of suspected terrorists. The third authorizes surveillance of “lone wolf” suspects who act alone and might not be tied to or involved with any specific organization.

“I think that the bottom-line answer is that slowly over time we’ve come to be much more accepting of the Patriot Act. I mean, we’re down to fighting about three little pieces that are relatively uncontroversial and that not a lot of people feel that strongly about,” said Paul Rosenzweig, Carnegie Fellow at Medill School of Journalism and former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy at Department of Homeland Security.

According to a recent Pew Study, the public’s view has changed little since President George W. Bush first signed the bill into law. In 2011, 42 percent of those who surveyed believe that the Patriot Act is “a necessary tool that helps the government find terrorists,” an increase from 39 percent in 2006. On the other hand, 34 percent believe it “goes too far and poses a threat to civil liberties,” down from 38 percent in 2006.

Also, there is less public awareness of the debates over the Patriot Act since 2006. Today, just 32 percent say they have heard “a lot” or “some” about the issue, compared with 2006 when 51 percent heard at least “some” about the Patriot Act.

The most controversial provision is government access to business records, which involves use of National Security Letters, according to Ken Gude, managing director for national security at the Center for American Progress.

Law enforcement officials, especially the FBI, use the letters to demand information from an organization about an individual, like asking a library for records of customers or a phone company for the cellphone trail of customers. The letters also require the organization not to notify the individual of the request. Gude noted that courts have no oversight of the letters.

The Department of Justice’s Office of Inpector General has issued reports and recommendations on the use of NSLs and Attorney General Eric Holder has followed the recommendations voluntarily. Recommendations include: The FBI should improve its database to ensure that it captures timely, complete and accurate data on NSLs; FBI should take steps to ensure that it follows all the requirements of the NSL authorities; and the FBI should issue additional guidance to help identify possible violations from the use of NSLs. All of the recommendations can be found in the Inspector General’s 2007 report.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wants the recommendations codified.

He introduced legislation to extend the provisions until 2013 but with expanded oversight of U.S. intelligence-gathering tools. Leahy, among others, has been highly critical of the way the Department of Justice has used NSLs without proper oversigh,t and he would like to use this round of Patriot Act extensions to change that. This will be the focus of Judiciary Committee hearings, according to Gude.

However, not all analysts see the NSLs as a major concern of an overbearing government.

“We live in a world where there’s a tradition of distrust of governmental authority and the National Security Letters, I think, are more of a symbol than a reality,” said Rosenzweig.

The roving wiretaps provision allows intelligence agencies to keep up-to-date with the latest technology, Gude said. But O’Hanlon has another view: “Any kinds of provisions involving Internet user wiretapping are going to be heavily scrutinized.”

The “lone wolf” provision has never been used, according to government officials, so critics have suggested eliminating it.

In addition to the substance of the provisions, their duration also will be up for debate in coming months. House Republicans, in particular, would like a short extension, which they think is a political winner for them in the upcoming 2012 elections.

On the other hand, President Barack Obama and the Democrats would like a longer extension that would move the next vote to 2013, after the elections.

Making the provisions permanent “certainly is an option,” according to Gude, and doing so would not cause much stir “because even if the law is made permanent, you can always change the law.”

Rosenzweig agreed, saying the Patriot Act is “just a feature of the landscape” and there have been no real stories of major abuse.

In the Pew study those of who heard “a lot” or “some” about the Patriot Act 49 percent see it as a necessary tool while 41 percent say it goes too far.

“The stories about misuse and abuse are mostly about technical violations. I haven’t seen a real upsurge in Nixon- enemy-list type things, which is what you really worry about,” Rosenzweig said.

 

Tagged

What's domestic terrorism anyway?

CHICAGO — What’s a domestic terrorist? Is it Joe Stack, who crashed his plane into an IRS office in February? Is it Scott Roeder, who was recently convicted of shooting a doctor who practiced late-term abortions last year? Is it Timothy McVeigh, who was executed for blowing up a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995?

Agreement on a precise definition is hard to come by.

“Terror’s a weapon, and it’s used by a variety of actors,” said Thomas Mockaitis, a history professor at DePaul University and author of the book “The ‘New’ Terrorism: Myths and Reality.” “Criminals use terror. It’s a weapon used to spread fear. Governments use it, insurgencies use it and what I call extremists use it.”

In 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act defined domestic terrorism as “activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”

“[That definition is] useful to a point, but to some degree, a street gang in Chicago could engage in the same behavior, and it really isn’t a terrorist group,” Mockaitis said.

But Mockaitis said the federal government doesn’t use one particular definition.

“There are between nine and 15 [definitions], depending on the agency, and they tend to be so broad they become almost anything.”

The ACLU criticized the law’s definition in 2002, saying it was expanded to allow the federal government more investigatory leeway.

“The definition of domestic terrorism is broad enough to encompass the activities of several prominent activist campaigns and organizations,” the ACLU wrote on its website. “Greenpeace, Operation Rescue, Vieques Island and WTO protesters and the Environmental Liberation Front have all recently engaged in activities that could subject them to being investigated as engaging in domestic terrorism.”

One expert said the pursuit of political gain is a defining attribute of domestic terrorism.

“I think that most people would say that terrorists have a political philosophy,” said Charles E. Tucker Jr., executive director of the International Human Rights Law Institute at DePaul University.

Tucker said domestic terrorism has been a problem in the United States for at least a century. But he said the line has blurred between terrorism and organized crime.

“Once upon a time, we referred to these domestic folks as anarchists,” he said.

Mockaitis said the biggest domestic threats right now are hate groups, militias and individual actors. The FBI calls these individuals “lone offenders,” though Mockaitis said members of this category are more “sociopaths” than terrorists.

“In every society, you’ve got disgruntled people,” he said. “The question is who mobilizes them for what purpose?”

Tagged , , ,