FBI & ACLU Spar Over Patriot Act at League Forum

by Judy Silberstein

(October 8, 2003) When the FBI showed up at the League of Women Voters’ Nautilus breakfast last Friday morning, October 2, the two agents were aiming to defend the USA Patriot Act, and they were packing information and argumentation rather than “heat.”

The two FBI representatives sat down to break bread with the overflow crowd of LWV regulars, local librarians and political leaders, civil libertarians and concerned citizens drawn to the topic. Facilitating the conversation was Alice Bloom, who presides over the monthly League discussions. Westchester Civil Liberties representative Wesley Stromberg was at the table to present that organization's point of view. Presenting the federal case was an Associate Division Counsel to the FBI (the agency prefers that names not be used); his mission was to dispel myths and describe the legal safeguards built into the USA Patriot act (an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.)

Like a defense attorney addressing a jury, the FBI lawyer delivered his brief for the act by reminding the gathering that there are thousands of people collecting money and devising ways to attack our country because they are opposed to the freedoms we enjoy.

He went on to outline the many layers of legal authorizations required to launch an investigation under the Patriot provisions.

Yes, it is true: the special FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court that ultimately must authorize the wiretaps and searches allowed by the act rarely refuses a request. This is not because of “rubber-stamping” but rather because the requests have been carefully vetted before reaching the court. Yes, the courts act in secret. This is because allowing suspected criminals to learn they were under investigation would render the wiretap useless. Yes, it is true: the Patriot Act would allow a search of a patron’s library record. But no library search has ever occurred. If it had, the librarian would have been on “Larry King Live” to complain.

In essence, he argued, most of the provisions are only extending to terrorist cases what is already allowed in racketeering cases.

This is the most misunderstood act, the attorney asserted. Most of the mainstream media “don’t get it right” so he urged interested citizens to educate themselves and recommended they start at the Department of Justice website: http://www.usdoj.gov

Called to present the other side of the issue, Mrs. Stromberg was quick to note that she was not a lawyer, a debater nor a public speaker, but only a devotee of the Bill of Rights. However, she remembered the internment of Japanese citizens during World War II, she had lived through the McCarthy era and had known individuals whose lives were shattered by investigations from the House Un-American Activities Committee.

“It makes us question and not believe,” she said, despite assurances from the FBI attorney that there has been a “ten-fold” change in the law and guidelines since the McCarthy days.

She and others who fear the Patriot Act are fighting against provisions of the current law and against the expanded provisions in the proposed measure dubbed Patriot II. By her estimation, over 178 communities across the country, including the states of Alaska, Vermont and Hawaii, have passed resolutions critical of the Patriot Act and reaffirming of the Bill of Rights.

As a civil libertarian, she was concerned that the act seemed to define terrorism so broadly as to put in peril constitutional protections under the Bill of Rights, particularly those having to do with unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

The crowd was friendly and full of questions for the Bureau attorney, but most attendees were either actively opposed to the Patriot act or clearly skeptical of its aims or safeguards. Diane Courtney, Director of the Larchmont Public Library and President of the New York Library Association, argued that an absence of librarians on Larry King was no guarantee that library records were not being searched: the Patriot Act makes it a federal crime for a librarian to reveal the existence of a search.

Many were concerned with the rights of the many individuals detained since 9/11 and held for long periods with little access to counsel.

The agent countered that almost all individuals detained after September 11 were ultimately deported, mostly for violation of immigration statutes. “These people were breaking the law,” he stressed.

Yes, but they weren’t terrorists, argued a number of attendees. Using the Patriot Act to round up illegal immigrants or other petty criminals is not what was intended. Furthermore, wasn’t targeting immigrants from certain countries a problem of selective enforcement?

She was willing to be open-minded, said Larchmont Trustee Anne McAndrews, but she noted that for most of the attendees, the issues were mostly theoretical. “Our Muslim citizens must live with this everyday,” she said.

"We've all lots to think about," said facilitator Alice Bloom, reflecting on the morning's discussion.

"If there is one piece of advice we can all take away from this first conversation it is that we need to read The Patriot Act ourselves. We need to carefully scrutinize it, identify provisions that trouble us and separate those from provisions that truly enhance the efforts of law enforcement officials without compromising our rights."

Print This Page--For best results, use landscape option in Preferences
Email this article