From an article1:
Though the government has not revealed most of the details of how it has applied the Patriot Act, the Justice Department told Congress in May that it is using the law in criminal cases, not just terrorism investigations.
Federal agents have used the new tools to seize a con man's assets; track down computer hackers and a fugitive; identify the hoaxster who made a school bomb threat, and monitor kidnappers' communications, the department advised the House Judiciary Committee.
In-house documents show that prosecutors are exploring other ways to use Patriot Act authorities in criminal investigations. (
link)
That sound you hear is John Ashcroft tearing up the Bill of Rights.
Complete text of the article,
Patriot Act available against many types of criminals, by Michelle Mittelstadt
Crisscrossing the country to defend the USA Patriot Act from the slings and arrows of conservatives and liberals alike, Attorney General John Ashcroft praises the law as invaluable to the war on terrorism and national security.
"We have used these tools to prevent terrorists from unleashing more death and destruction on our soil," he said last month as he kicked off a multi-state defense of the law.
Virtually unmentioned, however, is the fact that the Patriot Act extended the government's powers well beyond the terrorism arena. The creatively named law - USA Patriot stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" - also handed FBI agents and prosecutors a broad new arsenal for going after garden-variety criminals.
Already, they have used "sneak-and-peek" warrants, wiretaps, Internet surveillance and other Patriot tools in pursuit of thieves, computer hackers, drug dealers and money launderers. And they're exploring how the law can be used in other realms.
That's as it should be, a key author of the Patriot Act says.
"A lot of these tools can be used in ordinary crimes," former Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh acknowledged during a recent debate over the Patriot Act on CNNfn. "But heck, if we happen to catch a murderer, excuse me for not apologizing."
An array of liberal and conservative organizations worry that the law tramples on Americans' civil liberties, reduces judicial oversight, and can be used against people who are not suspected of terrorist or criminal activity. They dismiss the Justice Department's insistence that the law takes aim only at suspected terrorists, saying ordinary, law-abiding Americans could end up on the wrong end of a roving wiretap or other Patriot Act authority.
And the law, they argue, undermines bedrock legal principles such as Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The Founding Fathers "would be horror-struck at something like the Patriot Act," said John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties organization in Charlottesville, Va.
His group is just one in an unusual coalition pressing Congress to curb the Patriot Act, introduced by the Bush administration just days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and put into law six weeks later. Organizations from the American Civil Liberties Union and People for the American Way on the left and the Free Congress Foundation and American Conservative Union on the right have made common cause over their concerns that the law is overbroad and open to abuse.
Librarians and booksellers fearful that the Patriot Act opens their clientele's reading lists to FBI scrutiny also are in the vanguard of a backlash against the law.
"The scope of the powers that flow from the language is kind of chilling," said Marge Baker, director of public policy at People for the American Way. "It's not just that it might touch on regular criminal investigations, it could touch on anyone they decided they wanted to go after."
Nonsense, Justice Department officials retort.
The administration's anti-terror measures are wholly within the Constitution, the attorney general and his aides say.
"The course we have chosen is constitutional," Ashcroft said recently. "Because we are safer, our liberties are more secure."
Worried by the anti-Patriot groundswell, Justice Department officials are seeking to counter what they describe as myths and falsehoods fanned by opponents.
"The Patriot Act has become the whipping boy for all things bad in America," Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo complained. "Your car breaks down, and it's the fault of the Patriot Act."
The ACLU, which is suing to limit the records searches permitted under the law, claims the administration took advantage of the fear-filled atmosphere just after the 9-11 attacks to secure powers long desired by law enforcement.
Legislators "were presented with this law that was labeled an anti-terrorism law and yet had been carefully drafted to avoid limiting the powers to terrorism cases," said ACLU legislative counsel Timothy Edgar. "Then, they come back later and lo and behold, they see the powers have been used for ordinary criminal cases."
There were no surprises, countered Corallo, who said lawmakers had ample time to examine and debate the huge bill before adopting it by overwhelming margins. "For over five weeks, the Patriot Act was given significant, intense and thorough debate by the people, whether from the administration or in the Congress, who crafted it," he said.
From the outset, however, the Justice Department highlighted the terrorism-fighting aspects of the law, not its anti-crime side.
The administration's policies were "carefully drawn to target a narrow class of individuals: terrorists," Ashcroft said in December 2001.
"Our legal powers are targeted at terrorists," he told senators.
Though the government has not revealed most of the details of how it has applied the Patriot Act, the Justice Department told Congress in May that it is using the law in criminal cases, not just terrorism investigations.
Federal agents have used the new tools to seize a con man's assets; track down computer hackers and a fugitive; identify the hoaxster who made a school bomb threat, and monitor kidnappers' communications, the department advised the House Judiciary Committee.
In-house documents show that prosecutors are exploring other ways to use Patriot Act authorities in criminal investigations.
"We all know that the USA Patriot Act provided weapons for the war on terrorism. But do you know how it affects the war on crime as well?" the Justice Television Network, the department's in-house channel, said in a 2002 circular offering a course on the Patriot Act's effect on "everyday prosecutions" of money laundering and asset forfeitures.
In a May 2002 bulletin to the nation's 94 U.S. attorneys, a staffer in Justice's Computer Crimes and Intellectual Property Section wrote enthusiastically about the Patriot Act's reach beyond terrorism cases. "Indeed, investigations of all manner of criminal conduct with a nexus to the Internet have benefited from these amendments," the trial attorney wrote.
Critics say the law opens the door to broader uses by:
Expanding the definition of domestic terrorism in such a way that some fear the law could be used against anti-abortion protesters, environmentalists, AIDS activists or other movements with a history of robust, sometimes unlawful, activism.
Granting the FBI access to records maintained by businesses - ranging from medical, financial, library and purchase records - if agents certify that the request is connected to a foreign intelligence investigation or is intended to protect against clandestine intelligence activities or international terrorism. Librarians have been up in arms about this provision, even destroying records or warning patrons that their reading habits could be monitored.
Permitting law enforcement to conduct unannounced "sneak-and-peek" searches that the target is notified of only at a later date.
There was a lowering of the standard for searches and wiretaps under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Previously, such warrants were authorized only if foreign intelligence gathering was the "primary purpose" of the probe. That was changed to a "significant" purpose, creating a lower standard for installing surveillance tools to collect Internet data that may be relevant to criminal investigations.
Corallo noted that the "sneak-and-peek" provisions codified previous practices and said the business-records searches are explicitly prohibited for ordinary criminal investigations.
As for the criticism that the Patriot Act can be used in non-terrorism cases, Corallo said: "I think the American people expect us to use the full range of our legal arsenal to fight crime."
As Ashcroft passionately defends the Patriot Act, some in Congress are working to limit the law.
Sen. Russell Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act, has introduced a bill that would limit records searches by requiring the FBI to show that the documents pertain to a suspected terrorist or spy. "The Patriot Act went too far when it comes to the government's access to personal information about law-abiding Americans," he said.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, has introduced legislation - backed by a range of liberal and conservative groups - that would limit a number of Patriot Act authorities specifically to terrorism investigations, including the much-criticized "sneak-and-peek" searches. It also would increase judges' powers to scrutinize warrants and other authorities granted under the law, narrow the definition of domestic terrorism, and raise standards for records and wiretap requests.
"It's a good first start," said Denver attorney Jeralyn Merritt, treasurer of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "It places what I would call modest checks and balances on the most troublesome provisions."
The Justice Department is examining the legislation and has not yet taken a position.
Department officials have objected strongly, however, to recent House passage of an amendment that would end agents' ability to do "sneak-and-peek" searches.
Surprised by the House's strong endorsement of the measure and a growing anti-Patriot groundswell, the Justice Department has gone on the offensive. Ashcroft launched his Patriot tour and a Web site, www.lifeandliberty.gov, to make the case for the law. And others in the administration are taking pains to say they are using the law - parts of which expire after 2005 - as intended by Congress.
Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in July, FBI Director Robert Mueller said: "It is important for the committee and the American people to know that the FBI is using the Patriot Act authorities in a responsible manner. We are making every effort to effectively balance our obligation to protect Americans from terrorism with our obligation to protect their civil liberties."
That pledge doesn't appease some fighting to trim the Patriot Act's sails.
"If you talk to conservatives, we've always maintained our concern is probably less with what the Bush administration does," said Steve Lilienthal, director of privacy issues for the Free Congress Foundation. "Our complaint, I guess, is that those powers could be used by a future administration in a very different way than intended."
reference=http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/6716551.htm
The Clipboard: Patriot Act available against many types of criminals