Posted by
Randy
|
May 26, 2011
Rep. Steve King outlines the key provisions up for reauthorization in the Patriot Act in an opinion piece in this morning’s Politico. Take a look and weigh in with your thoughts:
By: Rep. Steve King May 26, 2011 09:08 AM EDT Since bursting onto the political scene in 2009, the tea party movement has sparked a renewed appreciation for the Constitution’s restraints on the powers of the federal government. Washington’s authority is not boundless. Rather, our Constitution establishes a strong, but limited, national government. As Congress takes up legislation to reauthorize three expiring parts of the Patriot Act, it should take seriously the tea party’s commitment to constitutional fidelity. Judged by that standard, Patriot passes with flying colors. It just lets counterterrorism agents use some of the same tools that regular cops have used for decades. These tools have exacting safeguards to protect civil liberties, and federal courts have consistently upheld their constitutionality. Take, for example, “roving wiretaps.” Mobsters, terrorists and other sophisticated criminals sometimes try to thwart surveillance by repeatedly switching cell phones. The result is a drawn-out game of cat and mouse. Investigators get a court order to tap a suspect’s phone, only to find out he’s already switched to a new one. So it’s back to the judge for a fresh warrant. Congress solved this problem for criminal cases decades ago. A 1986 law allows judges to issue wiretap orders that apply to specific people, instead of particular devices. That means agents can track a criminal — regardless of what phone he’s using — without heading back to court. The act allows the same thing in terrorism cases. The basic idea is to level the playing field. If a roving wiretap is good enough for Tony Soprano, it’s good enough for Mohamed Atta. Patriot contains robust protections for civil liberties. The court order is necessary: FBI agents can’t start eavesdropping on their own, they need a judge’s permission. They also have to prove the suspect is an “agent of a foreign power” – a spy or terrorist. And they must notify the judge every time they go up on a new phone. Federal courts unanimously agree that roving wiretaps are constitutional. One case emphasized that there is “virtually no possibility of abuse or mistake.” Another concluded that “[r]oving wiretaps are an appropriate tool to investigate individuals … who use cloned cellular phone numbers and change numbers frequently to avoid detection.” The Patriot Act stands on a solid constitutional foundation. Next, consider the act’s “business records” provision. In criminal cases, grand juries often issue document subpoenas to businesses, like credit card companies and online retailers. The Patriot Act lets agents get the same records in terrorism cases. The act’s civil liberties protections are actually stronger than those for law enforcement. Prosecutors can issue grand jury subpoenas essentially on their own, but the Patriot Act requires the FBI to get a judge’s approval first. The act also bars the government from investigating Americans “solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment.” And it imposes special limits when investigators seek sensitive materials, like medical records and library documents. The grand jury rules offer no such guarantees. The underlying constitutional principles have been settled for decades. A long line of case law confirms that investigators may obtain records from businesses without a warrant or probable cause. This is so, the Supreme Court explained in 1979, because “a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.” Finally, there’s the “lone wolf” provision — for terrorists whose ties to overseas groups may be a bit murky. The FBI faced exactly this predicament before 9/11. Agents suspected that Zacarias Moussaoui – then in custody on immigration charges – was a terrorist. But they hadn’t yet connected him to Al Qaeda, so it was unclear whether they could search his apartment or laptop. The 9/11 Commission later speculated that, if agents had investigated Moussaoui more fully, they might have unraveled the entire Sept. 11 plot. The Patriot Act fixes this problem. It allows investigators to apply for a court order to monitor a suspected terrorist — even if they haven’t yet found enough evidence to prove he’s a member of a foreign terrorist organization. Again, the Patriot Act makes it a priority to protect civil liberties. Agents have to convince a judge to let them investigate and follow a lone wolf. This tool can only be used to investigate international terrorism, not domestic terrorism. And “lone wolf” doesn’t apply to Americans. It applies only to temporary visitors – like tourists or students. Last week, the House Judiciary Committee voted to renew these three provisions, which are set to expire on May 27. We hope the rest of Congress quickly follows suit. Osama bin Laden is dead, but Al Qaeda is still very much alive. This is no time to go wobbly in the war on terror. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) is vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law of the House Judiciary Committee. Nathan A. Sales helped write the Patriot Act while serving at the Justice Department. He is now a law professor at George Mason University.
Posted by
Randy
|
May 26, 2011
Last night during the floor debate of the annual national defense policy bill, I had the opportunity to lead the opposition to an amendment offered by House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Adam Smith (WA-09). His amendment would overturn the inclusion of language agreed to last year on a bipartisan basis to prevent the transfer of detainees to the United States for the purpose of standing trial.
Posted by
Randy
|
May 24, 2011
Today, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, under the direction of Chairman Trent Franks, will hold a hearing entitled, “Can We Sue Our Way to Prosperity?: Litigation's Effect on America's Global Competitiveness.” The hearing will examine the increasing costs of America's litigation system and the effect of those costs on America's global competitiveness. The hearing will attempt to quantify the costs and the impact of our litigation system on American companies’ ability to compete, and discuss specific federal laws that arguably impose undue costs on the economy.
What do you think about the litigation system’s threat to America’s global competitiveness? Weigh in with your thoughts.
Posted by
Randy
|
May 24, 2011
Today’s Wall Street Journal editorial board weighed in with their thoughts regarding the PATRIOT Act, which you can find below. This week, Congress will vote to extend key provisions of the Patriot Act allowing law enforcement to continue their efforts to fight terror. These provisions include:
· Roving Wiretaps: Roving wiretaps allow intelligence officials - after receiving approval from a federal court - to conduct surveillance on terrorist suspects regardless of how many communication devices they use. · Business Records: This provision allows the FBI, after obtaining approval from a federal judge, to access tangible items, including business records, in foreign intelligence, international terrorism and espionage cases. · Lone Wolf: National security laws allow intelligence gathering on foreign governments, terrorist groups and their agents. But what about a foreign terrorist who either acts alone or cannot be immediately tied to a terrorist organization? The lone wolf definition simply allows our intelligence officials to answer threats from terrorists acting alone. It cannot be used against a U.S. citizen. Some argue that because we have gone without a major terrorist attack since September 11th we no longer need these tools. I disagree. These provisions continue to play a vital role in America’s counter-terrorism efforts--not only to prevent another large-scale attack but also to combat an increasing number of smaller terrorist plots. We cannot afford to leave our intelligence community without the resources it needs to dismantle terrorist organizations, identify threats from groups and individuals, and interrupt terrorist plots and help keep America safe. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Patriot Act Miracle Fears of Big Brother have rightly vanished. The antiterror education of the Obama Administration continues, this time with the reauthorization of key Patriot Act provisions due to be renewed before they sunset on Friday. Previous extensions of the post-September 11 national security law have been political bloodbaths, but the news this time is that everyone is acting awfully grown-up. While the liberal blogosphere is still peddling the Big Brother meme, the Obama Administration is now in full-throated support. Attorney General Eric Holder told the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month that it is "absolutely essential" that the provisions be reauthorized and that "we never want to see these acts, these provisions, expire." Allowing them to sunset regularly is "not helpful" and hurts intelligence gathering, he added. "Our prosecutors or investigators need certainty" and "if they were done on a permanent basis, that is not something we would object to." The renewal debate involves three sections of the law, known as "business records," "lone wolf" and "roving wiretap," which have become key tools of antiterror law enforcement. The first lets investigators gather business records related to international terrorism, the second to track aspiring terrorists acting alone, and the third to stay on top of subjects who try to evade surveillance. These special powers are important to law enforcement because they provide greater latitude than so-called Title III wiretaps, which require disclosure to the target. The lone wolf designation likewise allows intelligence agencies to stay on offense against terrorists who may not have previously shown any sympathy for al Qaeda or jihadist causes. Mr. Obama has apparently learned a few things since he indulged the anti-antiterror left's neuralgia toward the Patriot Act as a candidate, but the fevered opposition has also lived off myths intended to scare Americans. Have you heard that the law will let the government spy on you and your neighbors? We'd be opposed too, if that were true. In fact, the three provisions contain legal backstops specifically designed to balance security with civil liberties. When the intelligence community wants access to business records, roving wiretaps or a lone wolf designation, the request must be authorized by the special FISA court. To get a roving wiretap, an FBI agent has to apply to the FISA court and show probable cause to believe that the target is a spy, a terrorist or a foreign terrorist organization. The Senate deal struck by party leaders Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell would renew all three expiring provisions for four years. While the agreement wouldn't make the lone wolf provision permanent, a change favored by the intelligence community, it's an improvement on the two-year extension sponsored by California Democrat Dianne Feinstein. As a bonus for Democrats, the compromise would also put the next renewal in a nonelection year. When George W. Bush was President, the Patriot Act became part of the liberal conspiracy theory that Republicans were engaged in a lawless crusade to turn the U.S. into a police state. But the Patriot Act can now join Guantanamo, military commissions, unlimited detention, drone strikes, the state secrets doctrine and Middle Eastern democracy as Bush policies that Mr. Obama has embraced one way or another.
Posted by
Randy
|
April 25, 2011
The Supreme Court has rejected Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s request to make an expedited ruling on the constitutionality of Obamacare. The Court’s decision means that the issue will have to go to the lower appeals courts before it will be heard by the Supreme Court, delaying the final ruling on the healthcare law and drawing out the healthcare debate for at least a year.
So far, two federal judges as well as governors and attorneys general from twenty-six states have found Obamacare’s individual mandate to be unconstitutional. This provision requires Americans to either purchase health insurance by 2014 or pay a fine—a requirement which arguably goes beyond Congress’ regulatory powers. I recognize the national importance of the prompt resolution of this issue in order to provide certainty to employers, individuals, healthcare providers, and state and local governments. That’s why I supported Attorney General Cuccinelli’s request and introduced a resolution calling for an expedited resolution to the lawsuits challenging Obamacare’s constitutionality. Read more about my resolution here. Read Governor Bob McDonnell’s statement on the Supreme Court’s decision here. Weigh in: what do you think of the Court’s refusal to expedite the ruling on Obamacare’s constitutionality?
Posted by
Randy
|
April 14, 2011
Over the past several years, we have seen an increasing number of circumstances where U.S. judges have interjected international law into their rulings, allowing laws from other countries to supersede the laws of our own Constitution.
Posted by
Randy
|
March 25, 2010
As you may know, a federal judge this week ordered the release of an al-Qaeda terrorist organizer from Guantanamo Bay. You can read about that here in the Wall Street Journal. Thank you to my colleague Congressman Lamar Smith for leading efforts on the Judiciary Committee, which I sit on, in addressing this issue. You can read more about my work on this issue here. Smith Urges DOJ to Appeal Ruling on Gitmo Detainee
Classified Ruling May Lead to Release of High Value Detainee
Washington, D.C. – In a letter today to Attorney General Eric Holder, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-Texas) urged the Justice Department to appeal a ruling that may order the release of Guantanamo Bay detainee Mohamedou Ould Slahi. As the letter states, Slahi was considered by Pentagon officials to be the “highest value detainee at the facility” and that he was the “key orchestrator of the al Qaeda cell in Europe.” Ranking Member Smith: “It is certainly possible, if not likely, that Mr. Slahi will reengage in efforts to commit terrorist attacks against innocent Americans if allowed to go free. This ruling clearly puts the American people in danger and should not be allowed to stand. The primary responsibility of any Administration is to protect the American people. As such, the Justice Department has no choice but to immediately appeal this ruling. Any other action is a dereliction of duty and puts the American people at risk.” According to media reports, on Monday, U.S. District Court Judge James Robertson granted Slahi’s habeas petition, meaning the Judge agreed that he was being held without just cause. Ranking Member Smith requested a full briefing and a copy of the Judge’s classified opinion.
Posted by
Randy
|
March 10, 2010
Over the past year, Americans have made it clear that they opposed transferring potential terrorists from Guantanamo Bay to American soil for civilian trials. Yet after widespread outcry over holding the trials in New York City just miles from the site of the 9-11 terrorist attacks, the Administration has continued to consider other U.S. locations – including our military installations.
Our military bases are the training hubs for our men and women in uniform, and they are where our military families live and go to school. Trying potential terrorists on these bases will present unnecessary security risks, and moving any terrorist here is simply unacceptable.
I recently cosponsored H.R. 4738, which would prohibit the use of a military installation in the U.S. for a court trial of any accused terrorist. I introduced similar legislation last year that expressly prevents Guantanamo Bay detainees from being transferred to Virginia.
The questions remains whether, we as American citizens, are comfortable placing a target on our backs right here in our own communities. And the answer continues to be a resounding “no.”
Posted by
Randy
|
December 15, 2009
It was late on a hot July evening this summer when I arrived back from Guantanamo Bay. I remember going directly to the computer to pen my impressions on closing the detention facility and transferring terrorists to the United States. "A monumental mistake for our nation," is what I wrote. Today, the Administration is expected to announce that it will send 9/11 terrorism detainees from Guantanamo Bay to be housed in Illinois. This follows an announcement a few weeks ago that several detainees, including self-proclaimed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be prosecuted just blocks away from Ground Zero in NYC before a civilian federal court. I wrote about that in a blog entry here. The 9/11 conspirators are enemies of war, not common criminals. Moving terrorists in close proximity to American citizens can in no way make us safer. It is a security risk we cannot afford to take, and I am taking every action available to me to stop it. I recently signed a discharge petition for the Keep Terrorists Out of America Act, which would force the bill out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. If we are successful in collecting the 218 signature necessary, the House would be forced to vote on stopping the transfer or release of detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility into the United States. I've also joined with fellow members of the House Judiciary Committee and Armed Services Committee in cosponsoring resolutions of inquiry (H.Res.920 and H.Res. 924) to force Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Defense, separately, to release documents related to the Administration’s decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other 9/11 conspirators in federal court in New York City – the American public deserves to know the potential ramifications of relocating and trying them in the United States. This afternoon, I will attend a House Armed Service Committee markup on H.Res. 924. I am hopeful that we can bring this bill out of committee and onto the Floor for a vote, so we can make it known that the protection of American citizens and justice for the families who have lost loved ones as a result of 9/11 and terrorism abroad is our number one priority. |
SEARCH BLOGRECENT POSTS12/21/2012 - Question of the Week: In light of last week’s shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, which of the following statements represent your views?12/14/2012 - Protecting children from exploitation 12/05/2012 - Question of the week: Do you support the continuation of current law, which prohibits detainees from Guantanamo Bay from being transferred to prisons in the United States? 11/30/2012 - Question of the week: Given China’s growing military capabilities, do you consider China…. 11/21/2012 - A Thankgiving Prayer by Rev. Peter Marshall 11/20/2012 - Question of the week: Do you think Israel has the inherent right to defend itself from Hamas rocket attacks? ARCHIVESBy YearBy Issue
|