Govt. makes PATRIOT Act permanent

On Mar. 9, President George W. Bush signed a renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act, a day before 16 major provisions of the old law were set to expire. Bush's signature came less than 48 hours after the House of Representatives passed a slightly modified version of the four-year-old anti-terrorism law which makes it easier for federal agents to secretly obtain US citizens' records and communications. The renewal makes 14 of the 16 expiring "sunset" clauses of the original PATRIOT Act permanent and extends the other two sections by four years. The renewal of the PATRIOT Act marks a victory for Bush at a time when he is defending a program of warrantless, domestic eavesdropping conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA). The law makes it easier for federal agents to secretly tap phones, obtain library and bank records and search homes of alleged terrorism suspects. Bush has called it a vital tool in protecting the country. But numerous civil libertarians and librarians say it allows abuse of innocent citizens' privacy. As the House approved a final set of amendments to the bill to reauthorize the expiring provisions, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) expressed disappointment, saying that the small package of amendments failed to protect the liberty and privacy of ordinary US citizens. The ACLU opposed passage of provision S.2271 because it imposed additional restrictions on the First Amendment rights of those who receive demands of financial, medical, library or other sensitive records, among other reasons. "Today's vote failed the American people and the Constitution. Proponents of the law claim that the reauthorization achieves key 'civil liberties protections,' but the facts don't match the rhetoric," said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "Congress chose to ignore common sense reforms in favor of cosmetic changes." One change involves National Security Letters, which are subpoenas for financial and electronic records that do not require a judge's approval. Libraries functioning in their "traditional capacity" would no longer be subject to such letters. Also modified are Section 215 subpoenas, which are granted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. Recipients would have the explicit right to challenge the subpoenas' nondisclosure or "gag order" requirements. The Senate insisted on four-year sunsets of the FBI's authority to conduct roving wiretaps of targets with multiple phones or email devices, and of the government's powers to seize business records with the FISA court's approval. Congress overwhelmingly passed the PATRIOT Act, with very little debate, six weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, when emotions ran high and lawmakers were under pressure to do something, pass anything, in response. Most members didn't read any of the 342-page bill, having been given less than 48 hours to do so by the Republican leadership. Bush had called the act necessary to defeat terrorists; then-attorney general John Ashcroft had said that anyone not supporting the bill would be aiding the terrorists. There was only one problem in the legislation–it violated six Constitutional amendments. The act gave wide latitude to the government to search and seize property and to probe sensitive documents, such as medical records, without a court warrant, and to restrict defendants from using the courts to protest the intrusion upon their rights of privacy. To mitigate that unconstitutional problem, congressional leaders inserted sunset clauses calling for 16 of the more controversial 150 sections of the act to terminate by Dec. 31, 2005. That expiration date was extended until this month to allow for negotiations. About two years before the sunset, the Bush administration began a massive political campaign to keep those sections. They claimed that because the nation was at war, the act was essential. By then, conservatives and liberals had begun forming alliances to oppose the PATRIOT Act. Among conservatives who opposed provisions of the act were Newt Gingrich, former House speaker; Bob Barr, former congressman who led impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton; and Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform. Among major national organizations opposing the act are the ACLU, the American Library Association, the American Booksellers Association, the National League of Cities, the largely conservative American Bar Association, the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. More than 400 communities across the nation (cities, towns, counties and eight states) have passed resolutions seeking reforms of the PATRIOT Act. The official response by Ashcroft's Department of Justice to the community resolutions was to state that the opposition was "either in cities in Vermont, very small population, or in college towns in California. It's in a lot of the usual enclaves where you might see nuclear-free zones, or they probably passed resolutions against the war in Iraq." Those "very small population" cities included Atlanta, Baltimore, Denver, Detroit, Minneapolis, New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington, DC. On Feb. 28, the stage was set for the PATRIOT Act's overwhelming renewal when the Senate voted 69-30 to limit debate and bring the bill to a final vote. Commenting on the move, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), the dean of the Senate and its resident constitutional expert, warned that even with the new reforms, the law has given the government too much power to pry. "This new proposal would erase too many of our freedoms guaranteed to the American people," Byrd said. "In essence, this legislation says that the Bill of Rights is right no more." Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) said that the "war on terrorism" couldn't wait for more debate. "Civil liberties do not mean much when you are dead," Bunning told the Senate. Byrd apologized for failing to oppose the PATRIOT Act in 2001 in its original form. "There is no doubt that constitutional freedoms will never be abolished in one fell swoop, for the American people cherish their freedoms, and would not tolerate such a loss if they could perceive it," explained Byrd. "But the erosion of freedom rarely comes as an all-out frontal assault but rather as a gradual, noxious creeping, cloaked in secrecy, and glossed over by reassurances of greater security." Rep. Robert Scott (D-VA) said the act may ultimately prove to "be irrelevant" because the administration seems to be "wiretapping at will" through the NSA.