Critics argue that the Patriot Act is a dangerous infringement on American civil liberties. Now, more than two years after the passage of the Patriot Act, do we have any evidence that the critics are right?
For that matter, do we even know whether the Patriot Act is working to deter terrorism? Should the Patriot Act be allowed to expire, or should its provisions become a permanent part of the war on terrorism? Our show today: the Patriot Act--essential to the defense of the nation or an infringement on our civil liberties?
Intended to deter terrorist attacks, the Patriot Act expanded certain tools of law enforcement and--critics charged--shrank our civil liberties. Today, more than two years after the enactment of the Patriot Act, do we have any evidence that the critics were right? For that matter, do we have any evidence that the Patriot Act is actually helpful in deterring terrorism? Joining us today, two guests.
Dorothy Ehrlich: Well, I think the fact that they say it's unprovable is the fact that we should rely on. It is unprovable and one of the problems since the Patriot Act was passed and since September 11 th , has been the fact that there are so many actions the government's taken in secret that we have so little information and we can't hold the government accountable.
The Patriot Act is an act that's important in order for us to protect the country against terrorism. But at the same time, it is one of the best protections against--for civil liberties and against the abuse of civil liberties that we have.
Peter Robinson: Well, now this is the kind of television I like, two cleanly opposed positions. Off we go. The Patriot Act runs through more than pages and contains dozens of provisions. It's television, our time is limited, let's examine a handful of the most controversial provisions.
Section , which has been widely publicized, is the provision that would permit federal agents to march into libraries to demand records of books that targeted individuals have checked out. The provision never mentions libraries specifically but it does permit the government to inspect records held by third parties, financial records, travel records, medical records, library records, without the knowledge or consent of the targeted individual.
Before the Patriot Act, the government needed at least a warrant and probable cause to examine private records. Now the FBI needs only to certify to a FISA judge--that is a judge sitting according to the provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, that a search would help defend the nation against terrorism.
The FBI may now search records without warrants and without showing probable cause. There is nothing--the law that applied previously to such things as organized crime, to almost any kind of federal offense, did not require a warrant. This is a base canard.
Basically it required a subpoena which could be obtained without any judge intervening at all, a Grand Jury subpoena. What this does actually is interposes a judge in the process and actually is more protection than you had previously and, of course, it applies what existed for other crimes to the crime of terrorism. Peter Robinson: Dorothy? So this is a point--that a grand jury could have issued a subpoena before the Patriot Act and as the old saying goes, a DA can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, let alone to issue any kind of subpoena he wants.
So we now have tighter protections, not looser. When the focus of the investigation had to do with international terrorism, when it had to do with those kinds of--not those kinds of ordinary crimes….
Dorothy Ehrlich: Or there were other ways in which criminal investigations take place. Under these new rules that expands that power. It doesn't have to be in international, you know, terrorism that you're looking at. It can be almost anything. And I should say, without a warrant, there has--there have been times in this country and there certainly are those times even today where law enforcement officers have gone to libraries and they've asked for information.
Often they do it informally and they do it frequently. There was a whole program--the Library Awareness Program--during the fifties and the sixties where librarians were constantly being asked for information about patrons who had Russian sounding names. So there's a long and dishonorable history of focusing on libraries, of getting this information through all kinds of informal needs. These are the more specific rules that have been changed.
Peter Robinson: But shouldn't you feel at ease though that this law sort of tightens things up and formalizes them? Dorothy Ehrlich: Well, now they're doing both. You have librarians being asked informally for information. We have hundreds of those examples.
You have librarians also being asked for information through national security letters. That's why there's so much--you know, so much disagreement about how many visits have taken place. First of all, the law did not apply to terrorism before this act--the FISA law didn't apply to terrorism.
It applied only to foreign intelligence activities. This statute applies it now to terrorism as well. Beyond that, there are not hundreds of examples of people going to libraries. As a matter of fact, libraries are seldom the source of investigation unless there's some relevance to the particular offense. Peter Robinson: Section , so-called Sneak and Peek Provision: Before executing search warrants or wire tapes, law enforcement officers used to have to--legal phrase is "knock and announce"--that's the traditional phrase.
That is, make clear what they were about to do. In , FISA changed the law allowing the FISA court to authorize "Sneak and Peek" warrants, warrants that permitted law enforcement officials to conduct searches without notifying the targets beforehand but only in cases in which "foreign powers or their agents were suspected of terrorism. Now, Ed, isn't it hard to imagine any criminal investigation in which the FBI or other law enforcement officials wouldn't much rather be able to conduct their search first and notify later?
Edwin Meese, III: Before , or before the--and before the Patriot Act, you had a situation in which generally since again, these were intelligence type searches. Then there was a limitation put on but they never applied to terrorism until the Patriot Act. It was always to gain intelligence about foreign agents. Now in the--with the--with the…. Edwin Meese, III: …and the judge has to find that there is reason to believe that notification of the subject would either allow people to escape or allow them to continue their criminal enterprises or would otherwise thwart the purposes of the investigation.
There are some people who think that that law ought to be changed. I call it the terrorist tip-off act, if they were to change that particular provision. Dorothy Ehrlich: Well, but it is common sense in part. And in the past, there were always the allowance for five specific reasons.
You could always have an unannounced search in that manner. That law existed in the past. What's changed now is that it gives broad authority for law enforcement to engage in these kind of searches, in ordinary criminal cases as well as in cases having to do with terrorism. What's disturbing about this is that people feel very strongly about the right to privacy in this country.
And they also are extremely concerned about innocent people. It's one thing when the target is the correct target but frequently it's a incorrect target. That's why an announcement can make us not make those kinds of mistakes. One of the things about the effort to bring to the public's attention the danger of the Patriot Act and the danger of this expansion of government power since September 11 th , has been a broad coalition. With information about ACT test dates, fee waivers, and test prep, you'll find everything you need to succeed on test day.
The most up-to-date information is available through your MyACT account. Territories, please proceed to the non-U. Test Prep Guide Maybe you've been planning your future for years. Skip to Main Content Skip to Search. News Corp is a global, diversified media and information services company focused on creating and distributing authoritative and engaging content and other products and services. Dow Jones. Opinion Read the Latest. To view our latest e-Edition click the image on the left.
Most Popular. Jerry Ray Fee N. Videos Sorry, there are no recent results for popular videos. Commented Sorry, there are no recent results for popular commented articles.
Board approves school calendar. Updated Jan 11,
0コメント