IP: ACLU "Bitterly Disappointed" in House-Senate Joint Passage of Anti-Terrorism Legislation

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin, ~1784

> ACLU "Bitterly Disappointed" in House-Senate Joint Passage of
> Anti-Terrorism Legislation
>
> ACLU | Friday, October 12, 2001
>
> WASHINGTON -- The American Civil Liberties Union said today that it
> was bitterly disappointed with the passage of anti-terrorism
> legislation, which mirrored closely the highly controversial original
> legislative proposals the Administration submitted to the House of
> Representatives and the Senate.
>
> "This bill has simply missed the mark of maximizing security and, at
> the same time, minimizing any adverse effects on America's freedoms,"
> said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington National
> Office. "Most Americans do not recognize that Congress has just passed
> a bill that would give the government expanded power to invade our
> privacy, imprison people without due process and punish dissent."
>
> Late Thursday night, the Senate passed the so-called USA Act of 2001
> (S. 1510) 96 to 1 with very little debate. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI)
> was the only Senator to vote against the bill. He also introduced
> three amendments - all of which were defeated by his colleagues - that
> would have fixed several of the bill's more glaring problems. Murphy
> praised Sen. Feingold for his "courageous attempt to protect American
> liberties."
>
> This morning, the House GOP leadership substituted legislative
> language which matched closely both the Senate bill and the
> Administration's anti-terrorism package. It replaced the language of
> the PATRIOT Act, a bill that had undergone significant revision in the
> House Judiciary Committee to protect civil liberties. The new
> legislative language was agreed to in the wee hours of Friday morning
> and its substitution passed by a very thin margin after minimal
> debate.
>
> Before final passage, the modified PATRIOT Act (HR 2975) was met by
> robust opposition on the floor by House Democrats but, nevertheless,
> was finally ratified by a vote of 337 to 79, with 3 Republicans voting
> against and 129 Democrats voting in favor.
>
> It is as yet unclear whether the Senate and House will have to
> negotiate a compromise between their respective bills in
> conference. Given the similarities between the bills, the Senate may
> take up the House bill, making a conference unnecessary and "therefore
> forestalling any real opportunity to make a bad bill better," Murphy
> said. It is possible that the legislation could reach the President's
> desk as early as next week.
>
> Pressure from the White House and the Department of Justice on
> Congress to quickly pass an anti-terrorism bill modeled closely on the
> Administration's proposals has been increasingly fierce over the past
> several days. The Washington Post criticized the Administration in an
> October 3rd editorial: "Attorney General John Ashcroft continues
> implicitly to flog Congress for engaging in the balancing act that
> should have been his responsibility but that he skipped past. He warns
> of the possibility of further terrorist activity, which we have no
> doubt is real. The implication is that if it occurs it will be partly
> the fault of those who insist on modifying this bill."
>
> "In rushing through its legislation, the Administration has undercut
> any attempt at good faith negotiation with Democrats, the American
> public and even members of its own party," Murphy said. "If the bill
> does go to conference, we urge lawmakers to reestablish in the bill
> the proper balance between the requirements of safety and the
> necessity of liberty," Murphy added.
>
> According to the ACLU, the most troubling provisions in both the
> Senate and the modified House anti-terrorism legislation now include:
>
> Permits Information Sharing: Allows information obtained during
> criminal investigations to be distributed to the CIA, NSA, INS, Secret
> Service and military, without judicial review, and with no limits as
> to how these agencies can use the information once they have it.
>
> Authorizes "Sneak and Peek Searches": Authorizes expanded use of
> covert searches for any criminal investigation, thus allowing the
> government to enter your home, office or other private place and
> conduct a search, take photographs, and download your computer files
> without notifying you until later.
>
> Allows Forum Shopping: Law enforcement can apply for warrants in any
> court in any jurisdiction where it is conducting an investigation for
> a search anywhere in the country. This would make it very difficult
> for individuals subjected to searches to challenge the warrant.
>
> Creates New Crime of Domestic Terrorism: Creates an entirely new type
> of crime, which is unnecessary for the prosecution of the "War on
> Terrorism." By expanding the definition of terrorism in such a way,
> the bill could potentially allow the government to levy heavy
> penalties for relatively minor offenses, including political protests.
>
> Allows the CIA to Spy on Americans: Gives the Director of Central
> Intelligence the power to manage the gathering of intelligence in
> America and mandate the disclosure of information obtained by the FBI
> about terrorism in general - even if it is about law-abiding American
> citizens - to the CIA.
>
> Imposes Indefinite Detention: Permits authorities to indefinitely
> detain non-citizens, without meaningful judicial review.
>
> Reduces Privacy in Student Records: Allows law enforcement to access,
> use and disseminate highly personal information about American and
> foreign students.
>
> Expands Wiretap Authority: Minimizes judicial supervision of law
> enforcement wiretap authority in several ways, including: permitting
> law enforcement to obtain the equivalent of "blank" warrants in the
> physical world; authorizing intelligence wiretaps that need not
> specify the phone to be tapped or require that only the target's
> conversations be eavesdropped upon; and allowing the FBI to use its
> "intelligence" authority to circumvent the judicial review of the
> probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment.


For archives see: http://lists.elistx.com/archives/interesting-people/