A Patriot's PATRIOT Act

My Judiciary colleagues Jerrold Nadler, and Robert C. Scott joined me in penning this piece.

In 1928, the Supreme Court heard its first challenge to a secret government wiretap.  The court upheld the warrantless surveillance in that case, but Justice Brandeis dissented.   While the wiretap evidence was important to a federal prosecution, he warned that "experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent."  Brandeis' view was vindicated forty years later, when the Supreme Court overruled that decision and held that government wiretaps require warrants and probable cause. 

The House Judiciary Committee will take up legislation tomorrow to revise a number of provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, and we would all do well to heed Justice Brandeis.  Everyone agrees on the critical importance of fighting terrorism and crime.  And no one should question the motives of the law enforcement, intelligence, and military services who are on the front lines of this struggle.  But good intentions are not enough to preserve our liberty, and the current PATRIOT Act simply grants too much unchecked authority to our government.  In our view, it should be tightened up to ensure our government gets the information it needs, and keeps out of the information it doesn't.

For example, under current law, the government can get a secret intelligence court order requiring any person or business in the United States to turn over any information considered "relevant" to a foreign terrorism investigation.  The information does not have to involve a foreign agent or terrorism suspect, it simply has to be useful to investigators.  If a terrorism suspect visited a bar or restaurant -- or a bookstore -- the government might consider the credit card records of every other person who visited the establishment that night to be "relevant."  The government's showing need not meet any meaningful evidentiary threshold - a mere statement of facts giving rise to the government's belief that the information is relevant is enough.

Even more troubling are PATRIOT Act provisions allowing the government to obtain information on US citizens without any court review whatsoever by issuing so-called "National Security Letters."  These "NSLs" allow the FBI to compel banks, phone companies, internet service providers and others to produce customer records, while forbidding the businesses from telling anyone that their records have been searched.  Once again, under current law, the government may exercise this power if it believes records are relevant to an investigation, even when the records do not directly relate to any terrorist or foreign agent.

As legislators sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States, we are obliged to craft a law that preserves both our national security and our national values.  The old Franklin saw that those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither may be clichéd, but that is because it is true. 

That is why we have introduced a new PATRIOT Act bill that ensures our government has the power it needs to fight terrorism and defend our nation, and at the same time better protects the constitutional rights and freedoms that Americans cherish.  Our bill would tighten the standards for NSLs and for secret court orders compromising the records of US citizens, and includes a range of other protections to ensure these powers are available where needed, but cannot be abused.  It would also require enhanced oversight and reporting to Congress, so that any misuse of these powers can be uncovered and fixed.

When he spoke before our founding documents at the National Archives last May, President Obama echoed Justice Brandies:   "As a citizen, I know that we must never, ever, turn our back on [the Constitution's] enduring principles for expedience sake."  He was exactly right, and we urge the President and all members of Congress to take that principle to heart as we work together to craft a revised PATRIOT Act of which all patriots can be proud.

 

Comments

[confidance government]

Nothing less than the repeal of this unconstitutional "law" is satisfactory.

[000Jade000]

Mr. Conyers, Another thing, if Congress really has an interest in preserving our liberties AND our national security, I'd highly recommend that Congress spends some time REALLY LISTENING to the concerns of former FBI and CIA agents . . . agents who have a lot to say about intelligence failings, about corruption and espionage, and restrictions placed on them to approach Congress with concerns, and about you folks NOT having the power that you need to really change anything or keep this nation safe.

Former FBI agent, Sibel Edmonds has a new blog. The people she invites on to speak are all former intelligence professionals:

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/

[000Jade000]

What the American people really need is a modern-day Church Commission to really look into NSA pre-9/11 and post-9/11 intel. and actions, so that we can streamline our intelligence agencies, correct problems, and better ensure our national security. We'll never be safe so long as the Patriot Act exists. The indefinite storage of all of our communications, banking activities, purchases, etc. is leading in a dark direction for this country, and we all k now it.

[000Jade000]

Rep. Conyers - You're moving in a positive direction. However, I have to strongly disagree with your comment that "no one should question the motives of the law enforcement, intelligence, and military services who are on the front lines of this struggle." If we care about our liberty, then we absolutely should question their motives. By spying on all of us, all of the analysts & linguists involved are making us LESS safe by spending their resources watching us. IMO, the Patriot Act should be completely scrapped and in its place, we should simply reform the ways in which our intelligence agencies communicate with each other as well as take care of all problematic intra-agency policies.

We know that the NSA and CIA completely dropped the ball on 9/11 - the event that led to the Patriot Act. The NSA had bin laden under surveillance and eventually had Khlaid al Midhar and Nowaf al Hazmi (the Pentagon bombers) under surveillance, too. The CIA's Alex Station had all of this info., too. But they refused to give the FBI the information. According to James Bamford, the woman who heads Alex Station and refused to contact the FBI STILL has her job. This is wrong.

[Dr Scott]

Blah, blah, blah. I was a 12-year Army Major on the firing range at Fort Hood when 9/11 happened. I spent 2002 in Afghanistan where I left a lot of my blood. When I returned, I could not believe how much of my Constitutional freedoms you people had traded away for imaginary security. I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all ememies. How can I cope with the fact that the enemy is us? If you actually worry about terrorism, you are an idiot. And you have not understanding of warfare. If you're worried about dying, worry about loosing your health insurance. 40,000 Americans die every year because they don't have it. Thanks, Congress, for trying to reinstate 4th Amendment rights that should never have been taken away in the first place.

[shadowgm]

I have to agree. Where was the skepticism and restraint back in 2001? Apparently, our legislators were more concerned with waving the flag and being thought of as good little patriots to vote against this piece of fascist garbage.

A couple of weeks to come up with this thing, down to the nifty acronym?

Congress sold us down the river, and has continued to do so, renewing the provisions in the face of a sunset clause, expressing surprise when 'little-known clauses' popped up to justify actions of the Bush Administration, taking on more nonsense by way of the 'Protect America Act,' gutting FISA, and turning a blind eye to torture and Guantanamo Bay.

I do not believe the spirit or the letter of the USA PATRIOT Act, or its legal antecedents, can be rehabilitated, made safe, or otherwise 'cleaned up.' If it is wrong, if its core principles are suspect, it needs to be repealed.

[bullypulpit]

Here's hoping you do fix it. Or better yet, repeal it and tear down FISA as well. I would remind everyone here that Congress is to blame for the sundering of our rights as free citizens. When it came down to ceding more power to President Bush, ONLY ONE MEMBER OF CONGRESS SAID NO, and it was not Mr Conyers. We are still reeling from that.

[urfree2speak]

I admire what you are doing ...and my prayers are with you.

[scooperss]

The only reason that I can see for you to write this and post it on here is for votes.

Actions have always spoken louder than words in my book. Hop to it.

[000Jade000]

It's always good to know what our Reps are up to, and what they are thinking. If that translates into more votes for them, good for them! Mr. Conyers came to my city (Rochester) to talk about health care reform in the summer. Unlike the majority of our spineless and compromised reps., he had the courage and integrity to push for single payer. When he was here, he had the foresight to worry that we'd end up with a hugely inefficient mess of "reform" on top of our crumbling health care "system," and worried that President Obama would be too timid to simplify and push for a sane solution--single payer. So it seems that Conyers matches words with action. It's too bad that his younger counterparts can't find it within themselves to do the same. If they don't start, the Dems will lose power. They will deserve it, too, for their abandonment of us on all of the most crucial issues.

[customgreen]

Congressman, it is up to you to fix this mess. We can complain, write to our representatives, or protest, but in the end it is up to you and your fellow elected officials. I watch C-SPAN regularly and I am mostly dissapointed by the timidity of the Demoractic representatives. It seems to me that the burning fire of passion is gone. Very few seem to really believe what they say. To many times I have read one of these red meat articles calling for the repeal of something terrible only to watch as the cave in happens. Remember you are the majority, I think it is time to start acting like one.

[Rep. John Conyers - Huffpost Blogger]

As a CSPAN watcher, be sure to tune in for the Judiciary Committee "markup" of the bill today. We will vote on amendments to make the changes on the Act discussed here starting at 12:30 this afternoon. While it's unlikely they will show the proceedingds live, because the House in session, they will likely show them on taped delay and post the video on their website.

[Truby]

"And no one should question the motives of the law enforcement, intelligence, and military services who are on the front lines of this struggle."

And why not question the motives of people, especially those in positions of power. Unchecked power will lead to the loss of more freedom and give rise to tyranny

[SamEllison]

Dick Cheney surrendered my rights,
I want them back.

John, I've been with you since the Downing Street Memo meeting in the basement,
please keep your word.

[CAPTAINSKIPPY]

Improving a bad law may help a bit, but why allow our own government to terrorize our citizens with the excuse that "(other) terrorists" pose a threat to our well-being? Revoke the so-called Patriot Act.

[benali]

The most telling part of the Patriot Act is that which forbids businesses and others from telling anyone that they were subject to government demand for their records.

There is only one reason for such a rule-- to forbid the public (and Congress) the information they need to properly monitor the extent and numbers of such searches.

Just as there is only one reason for the FISA II telecomm immunity provision -- to prevent exposing what has been done to public scrutiny.

We can't have a vibrant democracy when critical surveillance actions are taken in secret. My hat's off to Rep. Conyers in his valiant attempt to strike a legitmate balance between security and individual rights.

[Rep. John Conyers - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks benali. This is a point that we address in our changes to the legislation.

[mcostello]

"The old Franklin saw that those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither may be clichéd, but that is because it is true. "

The more important truth when making a law is not the good that the police can do with it today, but the terrrible things that government can do with it LEGALLY tomorrow.

This law needs to be recinded ASAP.