UNAMERICAN NEW PATRIOT ACT

[Guest guest]

A

Wed, 01 Mar 2006 07:48:57 -0500

UNAMERICAN NEW PATRIOT ACT

 

 

 

Conyers calls Patriot Act reauthorization 'dangerous'

 

RAW STORY

Published: February 28, 2006

http://rawstory.com/

 

 

Congressman John Conyers Jr. (Democrat - MI) released the following

statement calling the bill calling for reauthorization of the Patriot

Act " dangerous " because it makes it harder for recipients to challenge

gag-orders, and complaining about the lack of debates or hearings

leading up to the vote tomorrow:

 

There is no more difficult task we have as legislators than balancing

our Nation's need for security against our citizens' civil liberties.

Nearly five years after the tragedy of September 11, and in the midst

of a war against terror without any clear endpoint, it is increasingly

clear that we are failing in that task.

 

We failed when we rushed through the first PATRIOT Act while the wreck

of the World Trade Center was still smoldering. We failed when we

refused to address the repeated civil liberties abuses by our own

government. We failed when were unable to put profits and tax cuts

before security. And today, we are failing yet again, by taking up S.

2771. Not only is the bill substantively dangerous, it does nothing to

respond to the serious flaws in the conference report, and it should

not be on the suspension calendar.

First, the bill is dangerous because it makes it practically

impossible to challenge the gag orders that comes with a secretive 215

orders. It would not only make the recipient wait at least one full

year before challenging a gag order, it deems government

certifications concerning possible harm to national security to be

" conclusive. " This is far worse than current law under which the

federal courts have rejected numerous certifications which failed to

provide sufficient facts to justify the gag order.

 

Second, the bill operates as a mere fig leaf, covering over serious

problems in the underlying conference report. For example, the bill

pretends to protect libraries from receiving National Security

Letters, but then revokes that protection if the library offers

internet access, which nearly every library in the country does. The

bill also does nothing to prevent the government from using security

letters to obtain confidential information having nothing to do with

terrorism; nothing to protect secret physical searches of homes and

offices; and nothing to rein in abusive roving wiretap orders.

 

Third, this bill should not be on the suspension calendar which is

ordinarily reserved for non-controversial, consensus legislation. This

bill was written by a group of four Senators, with input only from the

Administration. There was no consultation with the Conference

Committee, no consultation with the Senate, and certainly no

consultation with the House. Despite the lack of process, despite the

absence of hearings or any committee debate, we are being asked to

approve this bill on a take it or leave it basis. We have no

opportunity to offer a single amendment on this issue of civil rights

and liberties which is so important to our Democracy.

 

If we are serious about combating terror in the 21st century, we must

move beyond symbolic gestures and color coded threat levels, and begin

to make the hard choices needed to protect our nation. If we really

want to prevent terrorists from targeting our citizens and our cities,

we need to stand up to the gun lobby and keep assault weapons out of

the hands of suspected terrorists.

 

If we really want to prevent bombings like those which devastated

London and Spain recently, we need to challenge the explosives

industry to help us regulate sales of black and smokeless powder.

 

And if we really want to protect our people and secure our ports and

other soft terrorism targets, the Administration needs to honor the

letter and the spirit of our security laws and fully fund our homeland

security needs.

 

The legislation before us today endangers our civil liberties, while

doing nothing meaningful to protect our people, and I urge a NO vote.