Whither now, Patriot Act?

From Under Obama, feds may still snoop library files

President-elect Barack Obama's nominee for attorney general has endorsed an extension of the law that allows federal agents to demand Americans' library and bookstore records as part of terrorism probes, dismaying a national group of independent booksellers.

Eric Holder said at his confirmation hearing Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he supports renewing a section of the USA Patriot Act that allows FBI agents investigating international terrorism or espionage to seek records from businesses, libraries and bookstores. If not renewed by Congress, the provision will expire at the end of 2009.

The searches must be authorized by a court that meets secretly and has approved the government's requests in nearly all cases, according to congressional reports. The target of the search does not have to be suspected of terrorism or any other crime. A permanent gag order that accompanies each search prohibits the business or library from telling anyone about it.

Holder said he realizes the provision has been controversial and he will seek more information from department staff before making a final decision, if confirmed as attorney general. He didn't elaborate on his support for the law, but said at another point in the hearing that his top priority would be to protect Americans from terrorism, using "every available tactic ... within the letter and spirit of the Constitution."

"I was disappointed" that Holder supports the bookstore and library searches, "although maybe not entirely surprised," Chris Finan, spokesman for the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, said Friday.

The provision Holder wants Congress to renew, known as Section 215, "gives the government far too much power to conduct fishing expeditions in the records of bookstore customers and library patrons," Finan said. "We never expected that the change of administration would mean we had any less of a fight on our hands."


From US Attorney affirms support for Patriot Act

Montana's U.S. attorney affirmed his support for the Patriot Act during a presentation Thursday to state lawmakers.

[ ... ]

One provision of the federal law gives the government the right to wiretap Americans' phone conversations.

Mercer says the enforcement of some of the act's provisions may need to be examined, but he thinks Congress was correct to reauthorize the act.


From Anti-terror law invoked

Many of the more than 200 people convicted under airline anti-terrorism provisions of the 2001 USA Patriot Act engaged only in profanity or drunken behavior, not attempts to hijack a plane or commit violence, according to a report published Jan. 20.

Those convicted include a Lakewood man accused of arguing with a flight attendant who believed he was indulging in sexual activity, and a woman who spanked her two children and angrily threw a can at the ground when confronted by a flight attendant, the Los Angeles Times said.

“We have gone completely berserk on this issue,” said Charles Slepian, a New York security consultant. “These are not threats to national security or threats to aircraft, but we use that as an excuse.”

Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said convictions are pursued only when the facts and circumstances of a particular case warrant such action. Restraining such behavior has helped improve airline security, he said.

FAA regulations have long given flight crews wide discretion in controlling unruly behavior. The Patriot Act, passed within two months of the Sept. 11 attacks, gave law enforcement sweeping new powers.

One provision defines disruptive behavior on an airline as a terrorist act. Another broadened existing criminal law so any attempt or conspiracy to interfere with a flight crew became a felony.

Carl Persing of Lakewood said he was just resting his head because of illness in the lap of his girlfriend on a 2006 flight to Raleigh, N.C., but the FBI said the couple engaged in a variety of sexual activities.

A flight attendant said in an affidavit she twice asked them to stop, and Persing responded, “Get out of my face,” and later said, “You and I are going to have a serious confrontation when we get off this plane.”

Persing denied making the statement, but the couple was arrested. Charges were later dropped against his girlfriend, but Persing was sentenced to 12 months probation.


From President Obama, repeal the Patriot Act

As president, you will be faced with the difficult challenge of winning over voters like me, who disagree with your views on social, economic and foreign policy.

However, you said it yourself countless times that your presidency is about change, about the political grassroots network you have attempted to foster and about being a president who unites differences.

Mr. President, in order to fulfill the oath you are taking to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," it is vital to repeal the USA Patriot Act and further legislation infringing on our rights as American citizens.

Now, as a professor imparting constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for 12 years, you should be able to easily follow my qualms with this type of legislation. The original Patriot Act was passed on Oct. 26, 2001, and had many forms of constitutional breaches, such as hidden wiretaps, and searches and seizures without a warrant bypass the Fourth Amendment. The National Security Letter in that same statute demands records without a court order of United States citizens' library records while proceeding to put a gag order on the librarians, again violating the Fourth Amendment. You might say, "Well, Mr. Bajek, I voted yes in important revisions to the Patriot Act that was renewed in 2006 to protect your and other Americans freedoms." Well, there are inconsistencies with that reply.

Chip Pitts, an international attorney and lecturer at Stanford University Law School, still sees flaws in the law. During its revision, he writes in The Nation that the Patriot Act still violates the First Amendment (peaceful dissent), the Fifth (potentially indefinite detention without due process), and Sixth (speedy trial guarantees).

[ ... ]

Marrero is right, President Obama. One piece of future legislation being considered now is the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. This bill, if passed, would broaden the range of the term "terrorist" to include anyone who could use strong-armed tactics to force the government to change policy; thus, limiting our First Amendment rights of protest.