FLE

Patriot Act Talks Hit Roadblock On Privacy Issue

Efforts to resolve House and Senate differences over a revised USA Patriot Act have reached a stalemate, a key committee chairman said yesterday. That means the current version of the law is likely to remain in place through next month or longer unless Senate Democrats and a handful of Republicans drop their demands for greater privacy safeguards in a proposed renewal, the chairman said. But another senator said that the Bush administration continues to discuss possible changes, and that a resolution of the impasse is still possible. "I can tell you, after talking to Chairman Sensenbrenner, that the House feels that they've gone as far as they can go on compromises on the act," Specter told colleagues. "And I think the reality may be that we're looking at either the current act extended [beyond Feb. 3], or the conference report," which continues to draw opposition from most Senate Democrats and four Republicans. One of the four -- Sen. John E. Sununu (R-N.H.) -- said in an interview yesterday that in recent days he has held discussions with administration officials focused on "the few specific areas where we think the conference report can be improved." If a compromise cannot be reached by Feb. 3, he said, another short-term extension may provide the needed time. The main disagreements center on provisions that allow FBI agents to obtain records on terrorism suspects, who have very limited options for challenging such searches. Specter has said the law allows adequate "judicial review" of proposed searches. But Sununu and his allies say the law makes it virtually impossible for targeted people to prevail, even if they have no ties to terrorism....

Unfathomed Dangers in PATRIOT Act Reauthorization

A provision in the "PATRIOT Act" creates a new federal police force with the power to violate the Bill of Rights. You might think that this cannot be true, as you have not read about it in newspapers or heard it discussed by talking heads on TV. Go to House Report 109-333 USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and check it out for yourself. Sec. 605 reads: "There is hereby created and established a permanent police force, to be known as the 'United States Secret Service Uniformed Division.'" This new federal police force is "subject to the supervision of the Secretary of Homeland Security." The new police are empowered to "make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony." The new police are assigned a variety of jurisdictions, including "an event designated under section 3056(e) of title 18 as a special event of national significance" (SENS). "A special event of national significance" is neither defined nor does it require the presence of a "protected person" such as the president in order to trigger it. Thus, the administration, and perhaps the police themselves, can place the SENS designation on any event. Once a SENS designation is placed on an event, the new federal police are empowered to keep out and arrest people at their discretion. The language conveys enormous discretionary and arbitrary powers. What is "an offense against the United States"? What are "reasonable grounds"? The obvious purpose of the act is to prevent demonstrations at Bush/Cheney events. However, nothing in the language limits the police powers from being used only in this way....

Lawsuit unites Bush allies, enemies

The lawsuits launched last week against the administration's program of warantless wiretaps against Americans believed to be in contact with suspected terrorists unite liberals and conservatives, but some legal experts believe they will have a tough time winning their case. Administration officials have argued that there were two sets of legal foundations for the program, which was run by the National Security Agency, or NSA, and which President Bush says he authorized in the weeks following the Sept. 11 attacks. First, they say a resolution passed by Congress a week after the Sept. 11 attacks, authorizing the president to use military force against the perpetrators, implicitly allows the collection of foreign signals intelligence, even involving Americans. This second, deeper, basis for the program's legality is that as the nation's executive and commander-in-chief, the president has the inherent power, indeed the duty, to conduct foreign intelligence gathering -- including electronic surveillance of telephone calls and e-mails -- in order to protect the nation from attack. "This constitutional authority includes the authority to order warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance in the United States," Moschella wrote. Some critics argue that the president's authority to collect foreign intelligence simply does not extend to the United States itself. "Just like we don't use the Marines to patrol the streets of the United States, we don't use NSA to do law enforcement or eavesdrop on American citizens," said James Bamford, a journalist who has written several books on the agency. Specter and other critics argue that the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act limits the president's power to listen to communications in America -- even for the purposes of foreign intelligence collection -- unless there is probable cause to believe the person being surveilled is the agent of a foreign power. Robert Turner, a law professor at the University of Virginia and a former senior official who worked on intelligence issues as a Reagan White House lawyer, scoffs at both positions. "It's been the position of every administration since wire-tapping was invented that the president has this power for foreign intelligence, and every court that has looked at it has upheld it."....

Bush Steps Up Defense of Wiretaps, Patriot Act

President Bush today strongly defended the National Security Agency's spying on Americans and the Patriot Act — calling both legitimate tools in the fight against terrorism — as he launched a public embrace of the eavesdropping and sought to turn it into a political advantage. Arguing that his administration had repeatedly informed congressional leaders about the NSA program, the president said, "If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?" Bush offered his lengthiest public explanation of what the administration has taken to calling the "terrorist surveillance program" since it was revealed last month, much to his dismay. Referring approvingly to a 2004 Supreme Court case, he told an audience here: "I'm not a lawyer, but I can tell you what it means: It means Congress gave me the authority to use necessary force to protect the American people, but it didn't prescribe the tactics. It said, 'Mr. President, you've got the power to protect us, but we're not going to tell you how.'" The court said that the resolution Congress passed shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks granting Bush the authority to use whatever force necessary to protect the nation from terrorism gave him, as commander in chief, the power to hold prisoners who were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan....

Former NSA Head Gen. Hayden Grilled by Journalists on NSA Eavesdropping on U.S. Citizens

We return now to the rare news conference held by General Michael Hayden, the Deputy Director of National Intelligence and former head of the N.S.A., speaking to reporters and others on Monday in Washington, D.C., as part of a public relations offensive by the Bush administration to defend the N.S.A.'s eavesdropping on American citizens without court warrant. In a separate speech later in the day, President Bush repeated his argument. He had the legal and constitutional authority to authorize the program without congressional approval. Meanwhile, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is scheduled to discuss the legal justification for the program today. And on Wednesday, President Bush will pay a rare visit to N.S.A. headquarters at Fort Meade in Maryland. But it was General Hayden who launched the media offensive Monday morning. These are the excerpts of the news conference, beginning with Hayden being questioned by a reporter....


The Probable Cause of the NSA Controversy

We are either at war or we are not. If we are, the president of the United States, whom the Constitution makes the commander-in-chief of our military forces, is empowered to conduct the war — meaning he has unreviewable authority to employ all of the essential incidents of war fighting. Not some of them. All of them. Including eavesdropping on potential enemy communications. That eavesdropping — whether you wish to refer to it by the loaded "spying" or go more high-tech with "electronic surveillance" or "signals intelligence" — is as much an incident of warfare as choosing which targets to bomb, which hills to capture, and which enemies to detain. It was critical in the Civil War, when, by definition, it was done domestically — and without the slightest suggestion that federal courts should be involved. It was critical in World War II, when concerns about enemy infiltration were very real. And it is perhaps more critical today than during any war in our nation's history. Al Qaeda is an international terrorist network. We cannot defeat it by conquering territory. It has none. We cannot round up its citizens. Its allegiance is to an ideology that makes nationality irrelevant. To defeat it and defend ourselves, we can only acquire intelligence — intercept its communications and thwart its plans. Nothing else will do....


Bizarre scene fuels border concerns

U.S. and Mexican officials on Tuesday were investigating a bizarre encounter between Texas lawmen and heavily armed intruders who were wearing Mexican military uniforms while evidently escorting a caravan of sport utility vehicles that was smuggling marijuana into the United States. The smugglers, spotted on the U.S. side of the border in remote western Texas on Monday afternoon, hastily fled back into Mexico, leaving behind nearly a half ton of marijuana and setting one of their vehicles ablaze. Although no shots were fired and no one was hurt, the episode — along with an incident in November — heightened fears that Mexican traffickers and U.S. border agents are headed for a potentially deadly confrontation. American officers, who have long complained about being outgunned along the border, point out that the armed men seen Monday were riding in a military-style Humvee equipped with what looked like 50-caliber machine guns. ''It's an explosive situation," said Becky Dean-Parker, a Hudspeth County judge and local rancher. ''This is the second major incident where people with military-type uniforms and weaponry came in the defense of drug loads. We are very, very concerned because all it would take is one person to pull the trigger and it's going to be a disaster." Kristi M. Clemens, assistant commissioner for U.S. customs and border protection, issued a statement saying the agency is reviewing the confrontation and has asked the Mexican government for a ''thorough investigation."....