Senator Dianne Feinstein Defends Patriot Act By Andrew L. Jaffee, October 22, 2003	Home   Search   Forum   Terms

The U.S. Senate held hearings yesterday to discuss the Patriot Act. Readers might find it surprising that Senators at the hearing, like Dianne Feinstein, Democrat from California, reported no abuses of the Patriot Act. Senators were presented with success stories resulting from the legislation. Nonetheless, Senators expressed valid concerns about the legislation potentially opening doors into U.S. citizens' privacy -- a valid concern as my partner at netWMD pointed out.

According to the Associated Press, "Senators, prosecutors say most people confused about what Patriot Act does":

Even as they push to repeal parts of the USA Patriot Act, Democratic senators agreed with Justice Department prosecutors Tuesday that many critics of the anti-terrorist law don't understand what it does.

That confusion, however, does not negate arguments that the Patriot Act may infringe on the civil rights and privacy of Americans, they said.

"If you ask the average critic of the Patriot Act, 'Be specific: what is it about this law that you don't like?' many are at a loss to be that specific," said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., at a Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing.

"But keep in mind what's at play here," he added. "Who has the burden of proof when it comes to taking away the rights and liberties of Americans? It certainly is the government's burden to prove that. The individual citizen shouldn't have to make that case."

According to the The Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service:

Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act (the Act) in response to the terrorists’ attacks of September 11, 2001. The Act gives federal officials greater authority to track and intercept communications, both for law enforcement and foreign intelligence gathering purposes. It vests the Secretary of the Treasury with regulatory powers to combat corruption of U.S. financial institutions for foreign money laundering purposes. It seeks to further close our borders to foreign terrorists and to detain and remove those within our borders. It creates new crimes, new penalties, and new procedural efficiencies for use against domestic and international terrorists. Although it is not without safeguards, critics contend some of its provisions go too far. Although it grants many of the enhancements sought by the Department of Justice, others are concerned that it does not go far enough.

Of course, this is the U.S. Congress' take on the Act. There are many independent views available. For a good read from a group opposed to some Patriot Act provisions, click here. For a positive take on the legislation, click here.

During yesterday's hearing, Patriot Act proponents hailed the legislation's successes:

"The Patriot Act has been indispensable to our efforts to deter and disrupt terrorist activity," said Assistant Attorney General Christopher Wray, head of the Justice Department's criminal division. "Anything that weakens the Patriot Act will seriously undermine out ability to prevent future acts of terrorism." [AP]

and

"The act was nothing short of a breakthrough," said Assistant Attorney General Christopher Wray, referring to the anti-terrorism law passed in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The Patriot Act has improved information sharing among agencies, allowed law enforcement to adapt to terrorist groups' use of technology and provided tools to identify, pursue, disrupt, prosecute and punish terrorists, he said.

Wray, who heads the Department of Justice Criminal Division, also echoed a theme of the administration, that the Patriot Act has been unfairly maligned. [The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

The Act's detractors also expressed their views:

Groups as diverse as the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Conservative Union have denounced the Patriot Act as an affront to civil rights and to the constitutional protection against unlawful searches.

Charlie Mitchell, an ACLU legislative counsel, said that momentum against the act is growing.

"Voices of skepticism are being heard from communities across America and in the halls of Congress," he said, in a written statement. "We now know that civil liberties were exchanged for many powers that were unnecessary and, in many cases, are being used for purposes that have little or nothing to do with terrorism."

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said that 190 communities in 34 states have passed resolutions against the Patriot Act. "The administration shouldn't dismiss them," he said.

A bipartisan group of senators introduced legislation this month that would gut major provisions of the Patriot Act, including one that allows federal investigators to delay notifying terrorism suspects about search warrants.

The House effectively voted to do the same thing to the "sneak-and-peek" provision in July. [The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

But Senator Feinstein could find no reports of abuse of the Act, despite trying to find any:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she has received more than 21,000 complaints about the Patriot Act. However, those complaints either were against Patriot Act II, a bill rumored but never proposed, or against the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, which requires people from certain countries to be photographed, fingerprinted and interviewed.

Those two items have nothing to do with the Patriot Act, she said. In addition, she said, she has never had a single abuse of the Patriot Act reported to her, even after specifically asking the American Civil Liberties Union to find some for her.

No matter what your feelings about the Patriot Act, you should make your feelings known to your elected officials: