NV Congressman Gibbons on the PATRIOT Act
congressman jim gibbons of nevada responded to my concerns over the patriot act... i'm glad to know he shares some of my concerns but not happy with how he papers over some of the bigger ones, like the delayed notification search warrants...
Dear Mr. ---:
Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding the Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act. I appreciate hearing from you and having the opportunity to respond to your concerns.
(more)
As you may know, a great deal of my responsibility in Congress focuses on oversight of government agencies. As a Nevadan, I value every citizen's civil liberties, and I am committed to protecting them. Many people have contacted me with concerns about the PATRIOT Act, as well as to ask me to support various pieces of legislation that would alter the authorities provided in PATRIOT. Please let me provide an overview of this important law and explain both why I continue to support the Act, yet understand that some changes may be necessary.
With some exceptions, I support the PATRIOT Act. It was passed to update and strengthen law enforcement tools used in the war against terror. The Act modernizes the law to keep up with changing technologies, such as cell phone use, email, powerful information encryption technology, and globalized financial and transportation services. Until its passage,
terrorists inside our very country took unhindered advantage of this cutting-edge technology to further their own lethal plots, leaving our law enforcement officers to fight them with antiquated tools and procedures.
However, there are two specific issues I am concerned about with the PATRIOT Act. First, in regards to the issuance of warrants, 'reasonable suspicion' has replaced 'probable cause' as the minimum threshold for which specific warrants can be granted. I believe that, in certain circumstances, reasonable suspicion may be too loosely interpreted. The implementation of this aspect of the bill warrants very close scrutiny and possible changes. Additionally, the intent of the PATRIOT Act, as spelled out in its full title (Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) is to assist counter-terrorism efforts. The recent use of the PATRIOT Act in Las Vegas to procure documents not related to a terrorism case is concerning. With a strict interpretation of section 314 of the Act, law enforcement authorities were within the law, as this section does not specify that financial documents must be part of a terrorism investigation. However, this clearly contravenes the intent of Congress, and Congress may need to amend the law as a result.
Many have voiced concerns about the erosion of civil liberties under the PATRIOT Act. However, I do not believe there is cause for concern, as long as Congress remains vigilant in its oversight responsibilities. Indeed, the PATRIOT Act actually addresses the preservation of civil liberties, stating:
"Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, and Americans from South Asia play a vital role in our Nation and are entitled to nothing less than the full rights of every American...The acts of violence that have been taken against Arab and Muslim Americans since the September 11, 2001, attacks against the United States should be and are condemned by all Americans who value freedom...the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans...must be protected..."
Several special interest groups have spread misinformation about the PATRIOT Act in a way that thoroughly misrepresents the truth. For example, the American Civil Liberties Union has claimed that the PATRIOT Act provision regarding delayed notification search warrants, "expands the government's ability to search private property without notice to the owner," and "would allow law enforcement agencies to delay giving notice when they conduct a search...this provision would mark a sea change in the way search warrants are executed in the Unites States." However, they purposefully fail to point out that such types of search warrants have been in use for decades against organized crime and drug traffickers. The extreme nature of terrorism and organized crime requires the ability to delay notification of search. Without this protection, evidence is destroyed, criminal networks are put on alert, witnesses intimidated or killed, and criminals and terrorists flee. Further, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Dalia v. United States, recognized that this type of warrant does not violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
Again, many of the tools the PATRIOT Act authorizes in countering terrorism have been in use for decades against organized crime and narcotics enterprises. Like these types of crime, terrorism is a complex undertaking done by highly intelligent and organized individuals who often have tremendous resources at their disposal. These empires of crime, drugs, and terror simply require more powerful law enforcement tools to be successfully defeated. Many of the arguments used against the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act - the RICO Act - are the same arguments being used against the PATRIOT Act today. The RICO Act has been the most successful tool in the history of law enforcement against mafia organizations, and like RICO, the PATRIOT Act is doing the same to tackle terrorist organizations. Even with RICO and PATRIOT, these organizations are so powerful it may take years to break them up and bring them to justice. Without RICO and the PATRIOT Act, the Mafia and Al-Qaeda would be facing an unarmed American Justice system.
I am committed to protecting Nevadans' constitutional and civil rights. Please know, I will continue to closely monitor the implementation of the PATRIOT Act, and will be considering what changes may be necessary. Congress will have the opportunity to amend the PATRIOT Act this year, as many aspects of the law sunset in 2005 and must be renewed by Congress. When considering issues and legislation relating to the PATRIOT Act, I will keep your views in mind, as well as the interests and liberties of all Nevadans.
Again, I appreciate your willingness to contact me and share your views. For more information on the issues affecting our state, please visit my web page at http://www.house.gov/gibbons where you can sign up to receive breaking news, weekly newsletters and monthly columns --- all delivered directly to your e-mail address. I look forward to hearing from you again soon, and having the ability to keep you updated on the work we are doing in Congress through my web page.
Sincerely,
Jim Gibbons
Member of Congress Submit To Propeller
Tweet
Dear Mr. ---:
Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding the Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act. I appreciate hearing from you and having the opportunity to respond to your concerns.
(more)
As you may know, a great deal of my responsibility in Congress focuses on oversight of government agencies. As a Nevadan, I value every citizen's civil liberties, and I am committed to protecting them. Many people have contacted me with concerns about the PATRIOT Act, as well as to ask me to support various pieces of legislation that would alter the authorities provided in PATRIOT. Please let me provide an overview of this important law and explain both why I continue to support the Act, yet understand that some changes may be necessary.
With some exceptions, I support the PATRIOT Act. It was passed to update and strengthen law enforcement tools used in the war against terror. The Act modernizes the law to keep up with changing technologies, such as cell phone use, email, powerful information encryption technology, and globalized financial and transportation services. Until its passage,
terrorists inside our very country took unhindered advantage of this cutting-edge technology to further their own lethal plots, leaving our law enforcement officers to fight them with antiquated tools and procedures.
However, there are two specific issues I am concerned about with the PATRIOT Act. First, in regards to the issuance of warrants, 'reasonable suspicion' has replaced 'probable cause' as the minimum threshold for which specific warrants can be granted. I believe that, in certain circumstances, reasonable suspicion may be too loosely interpreted. The implementation of this aspect of the bill warrants very close scrutiny and possible changes. Additionally, the intent of the PATRIOT Act, as spelled out in its full title (Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) is to assist counter-terrorism efforts. The recent use of the PATRIOT Act in Las Vegas to procure documents not related to a terrorism case is concerning. With a strict interpretation of section 314 of the Act, law enforcement authorities were within the law, as this section does not specify that financial documents must be part of a terrorism investigation. However, this clearly contravenes the intent of Congress, and Congress may need to amend the law as a result.
Many have voiced concerns about the erosion of civil liberties under the PATRIOT Act. However, I do not believe there is cause for concern, as long as Congress remains vigilant in its oversight responsibilities. Indeed, the PATRIOT Act actually addresses the preservation of civil liberties, stating:
"Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, and Americans from South Asia play a vital role in our Nation and are entitled to nothing less than the full rights of every American...The acts of violence that have been taken against Arab and Muslim Americans since the September 11, 2001, attacks against the United States should be and are condemned by all Americans who value freedom...the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans...must be protected..."
Several special interest groups have spread misinformation about the PATRIOT Act in a way that thoroughly misrepresents the truth. For example, the American Civil Liberties Union has claimed that the PATRIOT Act provision regarding delayed notification search warrants, "expands the government's ability to search private property without notice to the owner," and "would allow law enforcement agencies to delay giving notice when they conduct a search...this provision would mark a sea change in the way search warrants are executed in the Unites States." However, they purposefully fail to point out that such types of search warrants have been in use for decades against organized crime and drug traffickers. The extreme nature of terrorism and organized crime requires the ability to delay notification of search. Without this protection, evidence is destroyed, criminal networks are put on alert, witnesses intimidated or killed, and criminals and terrorists flee. Further, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Dalia v. United States, recognized that this type of warrant does not violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
Again, many of the tools the PATRIOT Act authorizes in countering terrorism have been in use for decades against organized crime and narcotics enterprises. Like these types of crime, terrorism is a complex undertaking done by highly intelligent and organized individuals who often have tremendous resources at their disposal. These empires of crime, drugs, and terror simply require more powerful law enforcement tools to be successfully defeated. Many of the arguments used against the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act - the RICO Act - are the same arguments being used against the PATRIOT Act today. The RICO Act has been the most successful tool in the history of law enforcement against mafia organizations, and like RICO, the PATRIOT Act is doing the same to tackle terrorist organizations. Even with RICO and PATRIOT, these organizations are so powerful it may take years to break them up and bring them to justice. Without RICO and the PATRIOT Act, the Mafia and Al-Qaeda would be facing an unarmed American Justice system.
I am committed to protecting Nevadans' constitutional and civil rights. Please know, I will continue to closely monitor the implementation of the PATRIOT Act, and will be considering what changes may be necessary. Congress will have the opportunity to amend the PATRIOT Act this year, as many aspects of the law sunset in 2005 and must be renewed by Congress. When considering issues and legislation relating to the PATRIOT Act, I will keep your views in mind, as well as the interests and liberties of all Nevadans.
Again, I appreciate your willingness to contact me and share your views. For more information on the issues affecting our state, please visit my web page at http://www.house.gov/gibbons where you can sign up to receive breaking news, weekly newsletters and monthly columns --- all delivered directly to your e-mail address. I look forward to hearing from you again soon, and having the ability to keep you updated on the work we are doing in Congress through my web page.
Sincerely,
Jim Gibbons
Member of Congress Submit To Propeller
Tweet
posted by profmarcus at
5/26/2005
