Ashcroft warns of Bush veto on scaled-back Patriot bill Lawmakers raise privacy concerns Thursday, January 29, 2004 Posted: 12:47 PM EST (1747 GMT) WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration issued a veto threat Thursday against legislation introduced in Congress that would scale back key parts of the anti-terrorism Patriot Act. In a letter to Senate leaders, Attorney General John Ashcroft said the changes contemplated by the Security and Freedom Ensured Act, or SAFE, would "undermine our ongoing campaign to detect and prevent catastrophic terrorist attacks." If the bill reaches President Bush's desk in its current form, Ashcroft said, "the president's senior advisers will recommend that it be vetoed." The threat comes a week after Bush, in his State of the Union address, called for Congress to reauthorize the Patriot Act before it expires in 2005. The law, passed shortly after the 2001 terror attacks, expanded the government's wiretap and other surveillance authority, removed barriers between FBI and CIA information-sharing, and provided more tools for terror finance investigations. Civil liberties groups and some lawmakers, including Republicans, believe the act goes too far and endangers the privacy of innocent citizens. The SAFE Act, which has not yet had a hearing in either the House or Senate, was introduced last fall by Sens. Larry Craig, R-Idaho; Dick Durbin, D-Illinois; and other lawmakers of both parties. In a statement at the time, Craig said the bill was a "measured" response to concerns that the Patriot Act threatens civil liberties and privacy rights. "This legislation intends to ensure the liberties of law-abiding individuals are protected in our nation's fight against terrorism, without in any way impeding that fight," Craig said. The bill would modify so-called "sneak and peek" search warrants that allow for delayed notification of the target of the search. In addition, warrants for roving wiretaps used to monitor a suspect's multiple cell phones would have to make sure the target was present at the site being wiretapped before information could be collected. The legislation also would reinstate standards in place prior to passage of the Patriot Act regarding library records by forcing the FBI to show it has reason to believe the person involved is a suspected terrorist or spy. In addition, the bill would impose expiration dates on nationwide search warrants and other Patriot Act provisions, providing for congressional review. Ashcroft, who last year embarked on a national speaking tour in support of the Patriot Act, said the legislation would "make it even more difficult to mount an effective anti-terror campaign than it was before the Patriot Act was passed." http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/patriot.act.ap/index.html
I think the more accurate headline would be: "Ashcroft will tell Bush to veto SAFE Act." Anyway - it's reassuring to me that there are serious non-partisan efforts to deaden the impact of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. That's just....really good. A bit surprising too. That being said, the only way this SAFE limitation on Ashcroft's Act is going to pass is if Bush does not get re-elected.
The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act has given Bush near-dictatorial powers. Why would he just give them up? Because Congress tells him to? C'mon.
Ridiculous GreenVegan. The Patriot Act, which *Congress* passed, simply allows government intelligence agencies the freedoms to pursue all techniques available to them in their War on Terror. If you are going to demagogue something, at least get it right.
If Bush thinks you're a terrorist, he can lock you away forever. It's totally his call, and there's nothing Congress or courts can do about it. No trial, no jury, no lawyer, no explanation. If that's not dictatorial, nothing is.
But you are not a Muslim or of Arab decent what's to worry? (Besides being a dancer at a strip club where drugs are sold to support "terrorism", but that is truly an exceptional case). TJ, I suspect that terrorism is actually rampant in America's strip clubs. You and other right thinking Americans need to study this, upclose and personal. Remember investigating strip clubs is your national duty!!!
Haven't there been zero documented cases of abuse of the PATRIOT Act? Didn't Senetor Feinstein (D - CA) call for the ACLU to provide one example of abuse and they failed to do so? Also, there is no "right to privacy". That is something that has been made up. If there were a constitutional right to privacy, then there would be no need for constitutional amendment prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure.
To argue that because abuse hasn't happened yet (or has been discovered, who knows really besides the government what they have been doing since they don't have to involve any judges) is weak. The potiential for abuse and the clear violation of any type of probable cause or warrents makes eliminating those problems necessary. I am not against giving our intelligence capabilites greater access to the information they need to protect us, I am just against the government having such new powers without any type of check and balance or accountability built into it.
One could argue that to use is to abuse. Also I think there are cases where the PA has been used against non-terrorists, which clearly is not the spirit of the law.
