|
|
As of December 2005:
Resolutions have been passed in 399 communities in 43 states including seven state-wide resolutions. These communities represent approximately 62 million people who oppose sections of the USA PATRIOT Act.
See the US map of communities at:
http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/resolutions.html
##########################################################
Finally, Congress Stands Up
By David Broder
Sunday, December 4, 2005;
WASHINGTON POST B07
When Lindsey Graham and John Sununu joined the ranks of Republican senators, the last thing the White House expected was that they would start challenging administration policies on national security.
Graham, 50, came to the Senate in 2002 after a career as an Air Force officer and lawyer and as a member, for eight years, of the House, where his most notable service was on the team pressing impeachment charges against Bill Clinton.
Sununu, who is 41, also won his first term in 2002, after six years in the House. An engineer by training, he learned politics from his father and namesake, who served as governor of New Hampshire and later as chief of staff to the first President Bush.
Both of them had shown early streaks of independence. Graham led an abortive conservative rebellion against House Speaker Newt Gingrich and supported John McCain over George Bush in the 2000 South Carolina primary. Sununu challenged and defeated incumbent Republican Sen. Bob Smith in a hard-fought primary before beating Democratic Gov. Jeanne Shaheen in the general election.
Graham and Sununu have been supportive of most Bush policies, but their current objections illustrate the way in which some of the president's anti-terrorism methods have caused grave concerns among libertarian conservatives.
Sununu has taken the lead in a group of senators pressing for changes in the Patriot Act, the legislation expanding FBI powers that the administration rushed through Congress after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Many of the changes they wanted were made in the Senate bill, but administration objections have stymied their acceptance in a House-Senate conference.
Sununu and the others, who range from senators as conservative as Larry Craig of Idaho to those as liberal as Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Dick Durbin of Illinois, have threatened a filibuster to force further negotiations.
What Graham, Sununu and their brethren are looking for is specific and significant: a requirement that the government convince a judge that a search of records has a direct connection, not just vague "relevance," to a suspected terrorist; a right of judicial appeal to challenge gag orders on such searches; a requirement that targets of "sneak-and-peek" searches be notified within seven days of their occurrence; and a four-year "sunset" clause for these special powers.
Sununu and his allies have been discussing these points with the Justice Department and the White House for two years. What is frustrating, he told me in an interview, "is that they will not debate these specific changes; they respond only with sweeping generalizations that we need to reauthorize the Patriot Act. That's not good enough."
For Graham, the issue is the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and other (still secret) overseas facilities. Like 89 other senators, he supported McCain's legislation barring the use of torture or the extreme measures publicized at Abu Ghraib.
When Vice President Cheney lobbied the House to kill the McCain restriction, Graham jumped in to offer additional leverage to the administration's critics.
He first framed an amendment -- welcomed by the White House -- to bar enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay from taking their cases into U.S. courts, then enlisted liberal Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan and conservative Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona in a bipartisan resolution to provide automatic judicial review of all military trial sentences of at least 10 years. The resulting compromise gained 84 votes and, Graham told me, sends a strong message to the House that both the McCain language and this compromise must be included in the final legislation -- the White House notwithstanding.
What came through most clearly to me, in talking with both senators, was their sense that Congress as an institution must assert itself and take responsibility for setting policy on these national security issues.
For too long, they both said, it has been too easy to say -- or imply -- that it's the president's job alone to decide how to protect the nation's safety and vital interests. That complacent attitude may have been tolerable during the false lull after the end of the Cold War, but it cannot be accepted during a time of war and continuing terrorist threats.
Last month the Senate asserted itself by passing a meaningful, bipartisan declaration that 2006 must be a "year of transition" in which Iraqis take over major responsibility for the security and stability of their own country.
That younger senators such as Graham and Sununu are organizing bipartisan coalitions on such corollary national security issues as the Patriot Act and treatment of detainees is good news for the country. It is time for a similar effort in the House.
davidbroder@washpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/02/AR2005120201749.html
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
|
###
Citizens who dissent.
It was revealed that the FBI has been collecting information on antiwar demonstrators. Its October 15, 2003 memo asks local law enforcement to report activities they consider "suspicious" to the FBI's counterterrorism units. The FBI's listing of what constitutes "suspicious" shows how subjective that word can be: rehearsing for demonstrations, raising money via the Internet, and acquiring gas masks in case tear gas is used. Police in some cities may consider the mere act of demonstrating against a war to be suspicious. Clearly the announcement that "the FBI is watching" is meant to discourage dissent, especially from noncitizens and the whole families, including families of the military, who have been participating in the demonstrations against the Iraq War.
This Administration has used fear to increase its power. We must not let them use fear to silence dissent. Assure your community members of their First Amendment right to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Accuracy and Disinformation.
The Patriot Act has been unjustly blamed for a multitude of transgressions. While it is understandable that the misnamed act would come in for substantial criticism, it is important that those of us who explain threats to civil liberties distinguish between the Patriot Act and the host of other regulations the government has been using. As the Department of Justice's policies and claims face increased scrutiny from throughout the political spectrum, the department increasingly tries to discredit its detractors by claiming that they are "spreading disinformation." Here is an example:
Section 215 vs. national security letters. In July of 2002, the Justice Department claimed that it could not comply with the Section 215 requirement to provide the House and Senate Judiciary Committees a semi-annual report of the total number of times it had used Section 215 of the Patriot Act: That information was "classified." This fall, under pressure from librarians and booksellers, Attorney General Ashcroft reported that the number of times was "Zero," and that librarians were simply "hysterical." We know librarians are not hysterical, so what gives?
To obtain records using Patriot Act Section 215, the FBI would need to obtain a warrant from a secret FISA court. The FBI has avoided this necessity by issuing "national security letters," which require neither a warrant nor a report to Congress. In fact, last week Congress expanded the types of businesses subject to national security letter searches. The list now includes casinos, travel agents, car dealers, the U.S. Post Office, and others. As is the case with Section 215, the FBI may impose a gag order on the person from whom it requests the information.
Section 412 vs. immigration laws. Section 412 of the Patriot Act states that "the Attorney General shall place an alien detained under paragraph (1) in removal proceedings, or shall charge the alien with a criminal offense, not later than 7 days after the commencement of such detention. If the requirement of the preceding sentence is not satisfied, the Attorney General shall release the alien." To avoid the 7-day time limit, the Justice Department has used immigration law to detain and deport immigrants. Immigration law offers fewer protections from abuse than U.S. criminal law.
Sorting out "doublespeak." It is in the Department of Justice's interest to prove that its laws and policies are working and that stronger laws would provide better protection from terrorism. But listen carefully to claims such as these, and be prepared to refute them:
"The U.S. has deported 515 individuals linked to the September 11 investigation." (Attorney General John Ashcroft, June 5, 2003 prepared testimony presented to U.S. House Judiciary Committee) These individuals are surely among the thousands who were rounded up after September 11 on the basis of racial and ethnic profiling. Before they were deported or released, the Attorney General ensured they had no ties to terror.
"In its 94-year history, the FBI has been the tireless protector of civil rights and civil liberties for all Americans." (Attorney General John Ashcroft, May 30, 2002) Between the organization's birth during the Palmer Raids and its current activities were the FBI's infamous COINTELPRO programs and its involvement in HUAC.
"I would say the Patriot Act is effective because we have not had another attack this year." (Mark Corallo in Julia Scheeres, "How Changed Laws Changed U.S.," Wired News, September 11, 2002) If that is so, then what protected us from similar attacks previously?
--
To help you counteract some of the Justice Department's misleading claims, CDT's Jim Dempsey and Lara Flynt have prepared a helpful analysis called Setting the Record Straight: An Analysis of the Justice Department's PATRIOT Act Website.
 |
|
November 17, 2005
``If further changes are not made, we will work to stop this bill from becoming law.'' (Letter to the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence committees, signed by Republican Senators Larry Craig, John Sununu and Lisa Murkowski and Democratic Senators Dick Durbin, Russ Feingold and Ken Salazar)
Dear Bill of Rights Defenders:
An unacceptable House-Senate USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization compromise bill has hit snags in the House and Senate because it falls short of the limited civil liberties fixes in the Senate bill and even creates new problems. A filibuster in the Senate is possible.
Now is the time to flood your Senators’ and Representative’s offices with calls. Your work, including 399 state and local resolutions passed nationwide, meetings with legislators, calls and faxes, and hundreds of public forums and events have helped put the brakes on a bad deal. KEEP THE PRESSURE ON! Don’t let Congress ignore four years of hard grassroots work and months of House and Senate committee reauthorization hearings, negotiations, and votes.
Go to http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ to find phone numbers for your senators and representative and phone them all. Suggested talking points are below. (We have not included a link for sending emails because time is so short. House and Senate leadership plan to pass a PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill before they leave for Thanksgiving recess this weekend.)
The draft compromise:
Fails to ensure a connection between records sought and a suspected terrorist. The bill maintains the current, inadequate “relevancy standard” for records sought under section 215, which requires only that the government claim that the information it seeks is relevant to an investigation, without having to connect the target of the investigation to terrorism.
Places seven-year sunsets on sections 206, 215, and “lone wolf.” Seven-year sunsets would mean that, cumulatively, we would have to wait 11 years from the passage of the PATRIOT Act until these powers are substantively reviewed. This extension ignores previous, unanimous House and Senate votes for four-year sunsets.
Expands National Security Letter (NSL) powers. Any business that does not comply with an NSL could face criminal penalties. Furthermore, the report does not provide a meaningful mechanism for challenging NSLs in court, and does not ensure that the information gathered by these letters is destroyed if it is unrelated to the investigation for which it was sought.
Creates only illusory rights to challenge orders for records and gag orders. Businesses receiving requests for records would be allowed to contact an attorney, but would have only limited rights to challenge orders for records in court. Likewise, a recipient would technically have the right to challenge a gag order, but the court would treat the government’s assertion of national security, diplomatic relations, or an ongoing criminal investigation, as conclusive.
Includes harmful new provisions. Provisions that were not included in either the House or the Senate bill have been added to the conference report that would, among other things, create new death penalties and seriously alter habeas corpus. Many of the provisions are completely unrelated to the PATRIOT Act and serve to make it a “Christmas tree” bill, violating House rules to pass a clean bill.
For more information, see:
The 11/17 Bloomberg article, Senators Say Votes Lacking for Patriot Act Accord: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aV62ogQWNxLg&refer=us
The 11/17 Washington Post article, Senators Threaten to Hold Up Patriot Act: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111700844.html
The 11/16 ACLU memo, conference report summary, and more: http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=19407&c=206
compiled by:
Bill of Rights Defense Committee
Web: www.bordc.org
Email: info@bordc.org
Phone: 413-582-0110
Fax: 413-582-0116
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 Recap
Update on conferees progress: Little progress has been made so far, so there will be no final vote by the full Congress this week. However, conferees are continuing to work on Title I and should begin working on Title III tomorrow. The compromise bill they end up with, possibly later this week, will be what Congress votes on when they return November 16 for their "lame duck" section. Now is the time for your calls to keep unacceptable provisions out of the bill.
To help you, we have drafted sample talking points concerning (1) the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, (2) the anti-immigrant provisions of H.R. 10, and (3) H.R. 10's "Patriot II" sections. Feel free to pick and choose the points you want to make or create your own. Contact numbers and links for more information follow. Action alerts on specific issues and with cross-issue messaging are available at http://www.rightsworkinggroup.org. Many of these alerts will automatically email your Representative.
To the Senate
"My name is .... This call is in reference to the Conference Committee on S. 2845 and H.R.10. I'm calling to urge the Senator to remain firm and:
Not compromise on the creation of a strong Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to review policies across all agencies involved in protecting the nation against terrorism. We need a board that is strong enough to subpoena the information it needs, and that is independent, nonpartisan, and transparent. The House version of the board is unacceptable because its members would be appointed by the President without Senate confirmation, it would lack the authority to obtain documents or to interview anyone outside the federal government, and it would effectively be exempt from FOIA.
Not accept any compromises that include the divisive House immigration provisions such as the ones taken from the draft "Patriot II." As the 9/11 Commission has stated, we need "a full and informed debate on the Patriot Act." Congress wisely placed sunsets on several controversial sections of the USA PATRIOT Act, which expire at the end of next year. The time to consider expanding the USA PATRIOT Act or adopting parts of "Patriot II" is AFTER next year's debate on whether the "sunset" provisions should be renewed.
To the House
"My name is .... This call is in reference to the Conference Committee on H.R.10 and S. 2845. I'm calling to ask the Representative to follow the Senate lead and support true bipartisan intelligence reform.
The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board created by the House bill lacks the strength, independence, and transparency needed to be effective and to reassure the American people that its government is committed to protecting civil liberties. The Senate version would create a board that is strong enough to subpoena the information it needs, and that is independent, nonpartisan, and transparent.
The immigration provisions in the House bill, including some provisions from the draft of "Patriot II," will drive millions of people further underground, alienate immigrant communities, and separate American families. This will not make us safer. As the 9/11 Commission stated, we need "a full and informed debate on the Patriot Act." These issues and others like them can be debated next year during the discussions on whether the "sunset" provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act should be renewed.
Contacts
In addition to contacting your own members of Congress (http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/), please also contact conference leadership and other conferees if you have the ability to do so. Numbers are as follows:
Senate Conferees
*Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) - 202-224-2523; 202-224-2693 (fax) ALSO Governmental Affairs Committee at 202-224-4751; 202-224-9603 (fax)
* Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) - 202-224-4041; 202-224-9750 (fax)
Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) - 202-224-3353; 202-228-1382 (fax)
Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) - 202-224-5641; 202-224-1152 (fax)
Sen. John Sununu (R-NH) - 202-224-2841; 202-228-4131 (fax)
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) - 202-224-4774; 202-224-3514 (fax)
Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) - 202-224-2315; 202-224-6519 (fax)
Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) - 202-224-6253; 202-224-2262 (fax)
Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) - 202-224-6221; 202-224-1388 (fax)
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) - 202-224-2152; 202-228-0400 (fax)
Sen. John Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) - 202-224-6472; 202-224-7665 (fax)
Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) - 202-224-3041; 202-224-2237 (fax)
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) - 202-224-3224; 202-228-4054 (fax)
House Conferees
*Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) - 202-225-4401; 202-226-0779 (fax) ALSO Intelligence Committee at 202-225-4121; 202-225-1991 (fax)
* Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) - 202-225-8220; 202-226-7290 (fax)
Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) - 202-225-4561; 202-225-1166 (fax)
Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) - 202-225-2305; 202-225-7018 (fax)
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) - 202-225-5672; 202-225-0235 (fax)
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) - 202-225-5101; 202-225-3190 (fax)
Rep. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) - 202-225-7919; 202-226-0792 (fax)
Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) - 202-225-2876; 202-225-2695 (fax)
Links for More Information
BORDC updates its home page www.bordc.org, legislation page www.bordc.org/legislation.htm, and articles page www.bordc.org/articles.htm with new information on the progress of this bill. We thank the following organizations, portions of whose action alerts and resources we have used in this and other alerts. Please visit their web sites for more information:
Rights Working Group, http://www.rightsworkinggroup.org
Human Rights First, http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/
National Immigration Forum, http://www.immigrationforum.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=663
Nancy Talanian, Director
|
|
|
|
|
 |
