[Peace-discuss] Fwd: MORE REPRESSIVE LEGISLATION AWAITS ACTION

[Alfred Kagan]

>
>
>>MORE REPRESSIVE LEGISLATION AWAITS ACTION
>>
>>(EDITOR'S NOTE: Charles Levendosky, editorial page editor of the Casper
>>(Wyo.) Star-Tribune, has a national reputation for Bill of Rights
>>commentary. His email address is levendos(AT-sign)trib.com.)
>>
>>By CHARLES LEVENDOSKY
>>c. 2003 Casper (Wyo.) Star-Tribune
>>
>>During times like these, we earn a better understanding of the wisdom
>>behind the creation of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
>>
>>The founders of this nation wrote the framework of our government so
>>that the U.S. Constitution remains above all laws and all leaders. Not
>>even the president is above the Constitution -- to paraphrase what was
>>once said of the king of England and Magna Carta.
>>
>>The Bill of Rights was created to ensure individual liberties could not
>>be trampled by a panicky Congress passing repressive laws or by a
>>runaway presidency demanding more federal police power.
>>
>>In a climate of fear caused by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, members
>>of Congress passed a lengthy piece of legislation most had not read and
>>certainly had not debated publicly, the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. The act
>>
>>has granted unprecedented policing powers to the federal government. In
>>doing so, it has undermined the delicate balance between liberty and
>>federal authority intended by the Bill of Rights.
>>
>>However, the rights granted by our Constitution and the Bill of Rights
>>are not self-executing. They don't immediately trump unconstitutional
>>government actions. The federal court system is the arena where
>>individual liberties must contest against governmental acts.
>>
>>The federal courts have the grave task of attempting to maintain a
>>constitutional balance between freedom and authority. It is their duty
>>to check the power of an executive branch that has extended its power
>>beyond constitutional limits. It is their duty to overturn laws that
>>violate fundamental rights.
>>
>>It shouldn't be a surprise, then, that the Bush administration has
>>sought legislation to restrict the role of the judiciary.
>>
>>What right is more fundamental to an American citizen than the right to
>>an attorney when arrested and imprisoned? What is more fundamental than
>>the right of an accused to have an impartial judge hear the government's
>>case against him? What is more fundamental than the right of a trial by
>>jury? The Department of Justice, under this administration, has argued
>>that some defendants do not have these rights.
>>
>>Earlier this month, President Bush asked for even greater federal
>>police power than granted by the Patriot Act. And true to form, some
>>members of Congress leaped to introduce legislation to expand federal
>>police powers in precisely the areas the president requested:
>>administrative subpoenas, pretrial detention and greater range of
>>federal death sentences.
>>
>>On Sept. 9, Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla., introduced the Antiterrorism Tools
>>Enhancement Act (H.R. 3037) which would give the U.S. attorney general
>>the authority to issue administrative subpoenas in any terrorism
>>investigations. Such subpoenas do not need to be signed by a judge, nor
>>do they have to be authorized by a grand jury.
>>
>>The administrative subpoenas can "compel the attendance and testimony
>>of witnesses, and require the production of any records (including
>>books, papers, documents, electronic data, and other tangible things
>>that
>>constitute or contain evidence)" the attorney general finds relevant to
>>a terrorism investigation. This subpoena power would be authorized in
>>any state, territory or jurisdiction of the United States.
>>
>>Under the Feeney bill, those issued a subpoena for records or testimony
>>may be forced to remain silent about the subpoena, if the attorney
>>general certifies that disclosure may result in a danger to national
>>security.
>>
>>This power to search and seize records does not have to meet a probable
>>cause standard -- as constitutionally required by a valid search
>>warrant. An impartial judge, the traditional check on police power to
>  >search and seize, is eliminated from the equation. The Fourth
>>Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures would
>>be lost if the Feeney bill becomes law.
>>
>>Also on Sept. 9, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., introduced the Pretrial
>>Detention and Lifetime Supervision of Terrorists Act (H.R. 3040), which
>>if passed, would deny bail to anyone accused of domestic or
>>international terrorism. And the definition of domestic terrorism is
>>broad enough to include legitimate demonstrations that suddenly, through
>>no fault of the organizers, turn violent. Goodlatte's bill ignores the
>>right of bail as granted by the Eighth Amendment.
>>
>>On Sept. 10, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Penn., introduced the Terrorist
>>Penalties Enhancement Act (S. 1604). This bill authorizes the death
>>penalty for any act of domestic or international terrorism that results
>>in the death of a person. Specter's bill reeks of bad timing. Many
>>states are currently re-evaluating their death penalty statutes. A
>>significant number of death row inmates around the country have been
>>released because their convictions relied on faulty or manufactured
>>evidence. No one knows how many innocent prison inmates have been
>>executed.
>>
>>Meanwhile, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft attacked librarians,
>>calling them "hysterics" for being critical of Section 215 of the
>>Patriot Act. This provision of the Patriot Act allows the federal
>>government to obtain the borrowing or purchase records of libraries,
>>bookstores and their patrons.
>>
>>On Sept. 19, Ashcroft told an audience of police officers and
>>prosecutors in Memphis, Tenn., that Section 215 has never been used to
>>seek library or bookstore records.
>>
>>However, in March, Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said
>>libraries had become a logical target of surveillance.
>>
>>And a previous Freedom of Information Act request concerning the number
>>of times the records of libraries and bookstores have been obtained by
>>the Justice Department was denied as classified.
>>
>>Then in May, Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh said an informal
>>survey of FBI field offices found that agents had contacted libraries
>>about 50 times, but usually the inquiries were related to criminal
>>investigations.
>>
>>In Oct. 2002, the Library Research Center at the University of Illinois
>>conducted its own survey, asking how many libraries had received visits
>>from the FBI. Nearly 180 libraries claimed they had received visits from
>>
>>the FBI but did not disclose whether the visits were authorized by the
>>Patriot Act.
>>
>>Section 215 of the Patriot Act wrongly allows the Justice Department to
>>search the reading records of American citizens.
>>
>>If Section 215 hasn't been used yet, as Ashcroft alleges, perhaps it
>>isn't necessary. Seeking a warrant for those records via the Fourth
>>Amendment instead of through a secret court would be a better way to
>>protect the public from an overzealous government -- and from
>>terrorists.
>>
>>


-- 


Al Kagan
African Studies Bibliographer and Professor of Library Administration
Africana Unit, Room 328
University of Illinois Library
1408 W. Gregory Drive
Urbana, IL 61801, USA

tel. 217-333-6519
fax. 217-333-2214
e-mail. akagan at uiuc.edu