Subject: FW: [COL:1569] FW: Sen. John Sununu: Patriot Act necessary, few provisions are not Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 15:59:44 -0600 Message-ID: <BDD0A3EABE40F04A8C7200805EDE5A6A04035726@PEPSI.uwec.edu> From: "Richmond, Elizabeth B." <RICHMOEB@uwec.edu>
another item, just fyi. Some good language in it.
Betsy Richmond (I like Sununu's quote!)
"Those who would sacrifice a little freedom for temporal safety deserve
neither to be free or safe."
Ben Franklin
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tue Dec 13 22:43:37 2005
Subject: Sen. John Sununu: Patriot Act necessary, few provisions are not
http://www.theunionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Sen.+John+Sununu%3A+
Patriot+Act+necessary%2C+few+provisions+are+not&articleId=7b96270c-8854-
4d8d-bf63-01c8672e351a
Sen. John Sununu: Patriot Act necessary, few provisions are not By SEN.
JOHN SUNUNU
1 hour, 32 minutes ago
THIS WEEK, Congress considers legislation extending the implementation
of the USA Patriot Act, a bill passed just six weeks after 9-11 to
assist law enforcement personnel pursuing terrorists at home and abroad.
Understandably, the debate surrounding the bill is fraught with emotion.
All Americans share a sense of outrage at the acts committed on
September 11, 2001, and all want to provide law enforcement with the
tools necessary to identify and prosecute terrorists.
At issue, however, is whether the proposed changes take appropriate
steps to protect the civil liberties of innocent Americans who might
otherwise be affected by the elements of this far-reaching law. I
believe they do not. And, given the importance of these individual
freedoms, I cannot support the bill in its current form.
Ultimately, this debate is about police powers - powers granted by the
people to government - and the balance we strike between these forceful
tools and the rights of individuals. Historically, we have given
significant authority to law enforcement agents to search homes,
confiscate business records, detain suspects and the like because it is
in the pubic interest to do so. In bestowing such police powers,
however, the Framers of our Constitution were always mindful - as we
must be today - to guarantee fundamental protections for individuals,
their property and their liberty.
Provisions written into the Constitution and in laws are designed to
protect the innocent, defend against abuse and ensure the perpetuation
of individual liberty no matter who holds the reins of power in the
executive, legislative or judicial branches of government. Thus,
evidence must be shown to obtain a search warrant; we have a right to
face an accuser; and when wrongly prosecuted, we can appeal our case to
court. These are the specific and fundamental rights at issue as we
consider extending the Patriot Act.
As originally written, the Patriot Act created and/or expanded two
specific types of subpoena power for federal authorities: the first, a
"215 order," allows the confiscation of any business or library records
believed to be relevant to a terrorism investigation; the second,
National Security Letters (NSLs) - issued without the approval of a
judge - allow the government to compel businesses to provide access to a
broad range of financial information, including transaction records and
data. In both cases, a "gag order" is automatically imposed, preventing
a business or individual from even discussing that the order has been
issued. As dramatic as these powers may be, I do not oppose their
creation or extension. It is essential, however, that Americans are
given the fair opportunity to appeal these orders and their accompanying
"gag order" before a judge in a court of law.
The PATRIOT Act fails to provide for meaningful judicial review of NSLs
by placing an unreasonable burden on the individual to show that the
government acted "in bad faith." Even in the most egregious of cases, an
innocent American would have difficulty meeting such a high threshold.
According to published reports, over 30,000 NSLs have been issued and
not one has been rejected as "unnecessary." This fact alone suggests
that a system of checks and balances essential to the health of our
judicial system has not been properly implemented for these powerful
security letters.
Furthermore, the proposed bill provides no judicial review of the
automatic, permanent "gag order" that accompanies a "215 order" served
on a business or library. Appealing this restriction of free speech
would seem to be among the most basic rights due to an American in the
face of such government power. Equally important, reviewing "a gag
order" in court will in no way impede the ability of law enforcement to
pursue investigations or monitor suspected terrorists.
In 1755, Benjamin Franklin observed that "Those who would give up
essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve
neither liberty nor safety." Our belief in the primacy of individual
liberty makes America unique and keeps us strong. This principle is
eternal, and should be applied always consistently during times of
prosperity and want, and times of war and peace.
Establishing reasonable standards of evidence and allowing judicial
review of subpoenas and "gag orders" does not threaten anyone's
security; but, these allowances will ensure that civil liberties are
protected and maintained today and in the future. It may not be a
politically popular stand, but it is one that I believe our country's
Founders would very much understand.
John Sununu represents New Hampshire in the U.S. Senate.