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.
Loading comments… 
Former FBI agent, Sibel Edmonds has a new blog. The people she invites on to speak are all former intelligen
http://www
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 surveillan
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-kn
I do not believe the spirit or the letter of the USA PATRIOT Act, or its legal antecedent
Actions have always spoken louder than words in my book. Hop to it.
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
I want them back.
John, I've been with you since the Downing Street Memo meeting in the basement,
please keep your word.
There is only one reason for such a rule-- to forbid the public (and Congress) the informatio
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 surveillan
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.