Fair LawnHigh School Debate Team
2005-2006 Negative Factsheet
By Joshua Sacks
Last Updated: 10/17/05
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially decrease its authority to detain without charge or to search without probable cause.
Part I: USA Patriot Act Myths and Facts
Myth: The patriot act is ineffective.
Fact: According to the US Department of Justice, “Since September 11th, the United States has charged over 400 suspected terrorists, and more than half of those charged have already been convicted.”
There are also examples of specific cases (useful to bring up – very difficult to refute).
Two years ago, FBI agents in Ohio confronted Iyman Faris, and he was charged with providing support to al-Qaeda after he, among other things, agreed to take part in a plot to destroy a New York City bridge. The capture came after an investigation that involved more than a dozen agencies in the Southern Ohio Joint Terrorism Task Force that was made possible by the Patriot Act. According to one FBI agent, “The Faris case would not have happened without the Patriot Act. We would never have even had the lead.”[1]
There is also the case of the “Lackawanna Six,” where a terrorist sleeper cell was caught in Lackawanna, New York because of a wiretap put in place by the FBI, in accordance with the Patriot Act.
Myth: National Security Letters can be used to search a person without a warrant, and they cannot talk about it with anyone.
Fact: On September 29, 2005, a federal judge in New York ruled that NSL’s were unconstitutional, and struck section 203 (NSLs) from the Act.
Myth: Delayed Notice Search Warrants is an unconstitutional intrusion into our privacy.
Fact: Section 213, of the Patriot Act (delayed notice search warrants) has been used for decades before the Patriot Act’s existence. In fact, every federal court has upheld their use.
It should be noted that these warrants have to be obtained by a judge before they are executed. It only delays the notice of the search to the person being searched. The FBI has to prove to a judge before obtaining one that there is a threat of death or physical harm to an individual, evidence tampering, witness intimidation, flight from prosecution, or serious jeopardy to an investigation.
Delayed notification search warrants are a long-existing, crime-fighting tool upheld by courts nationwide for decades in organized crime, drug cases and child pornography. The Patriot Act simply codified the authority law enforcement had already had for decades. This tool is a vital aspect of our strategy of prevention - detecting and incapacitating terrorists before they are able to strike.
In some cases if criminals are tipped off too early to an investigation, they might flee, destroy evidence, intimidate or kill witnesses, cut off contact with associates, or take other action to evade arrest. Therefore, federal courts in narrow circumstances long have allowed law enforcement to delay for a limited time when the subject is told that a judicially-approved search warrant has been executed. This tool can be used only with a court order, in extremely narrow circumstances when immediate notification may result in death or physical harm to an individual, flight from prosecution, evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or serious jeopardy to an investigation. The reasonable delay gives law enforcement time to identify the criminal's associates, eliminate immediate threats to our communities, and coordinate the arrests of multiple individuals without tipping them off beforehand. In all cases, law enforcement must give notice that property has been searched or seized.
The Supreme Court has held the Fourth Amendment does not require law enforcement to give immediate notice of the execution of a search warrant. The Supreme Court emphasized "that covert entries are constitutional in some circumstances, at least if they are made pursuant to a warrant." In fact, the Court stated that an argument to the contrary was "frivolous." Dalia v. U.S., 441 U.S. 238 (1979)
This type of warrant is only used 1 in 500 times, or 0.2% of all searches conducted.
Myth: The Patriot Act is abused.
Fact: According to liberal democratic senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), there have been “no reported abuses of the PATRIOT Act.”
Myth: Wiretaps are unconstitutional.
Fact: Before the Patriot Act, it was easier to use a wiretap against a person committing mail fraud, or track the phone contacts of a drug dealer, or get the credit card receipts of a tax cheat, than to use these respective tools against a foreign terrorist.
Roving Wiretaps Are Essential In Investigating International Terrorists. The Patriot Act extended the use of roving wiretaps, which were already permitted against drug kingpins and mob bosses, to international terrorism investigations. They must be approved by a judge. Without roving wiretaps, terrorists could elude law enforcement by simply purchasing a new cell phone.
Myth: The ACLU claims that the Patriot Act "expands terrorism laws to include 'domestic terrorism' which could subject political organizations to surveillance, wiretapping, harassment, and criminal action for political advocacy." They also claim that it includes a "provision that might allow the actions of peaceful groups that dissent from government policy, such as Greenpeace, to be treated as 'domestic terrorism.'" (ACLU, February 11, 2003; ACLU fundraising letter, cited by Stuart Taylor in "UnPATRIOTic," National Journal, August 4, 2003)
Fact: The Patriot Act limits domestic terrorism to conduct that breaks criminal laws, endangering human life. "Peaceful groups that dissent from government policy" without breaking laws cannot be targeted. Peaceful political discourse and dissent is one of America's most cherished freedoms, and is not subject to investigation as domestic terrorism. Under the Patriot Act, the definition of "domestic terrorism" is limited to conduct that (1) violates federal or state criminal law and (2) is dangerous to human life. Therefore, peaceful political organizations engaging in political advocacy will obviously not come under this definition. (Patriot Act, Section 802)
Myth: The ACLU has claimed that "Many [people] are unaware that their library habits could become the target of government surveillance. In a free society, such monitoring is odious and unnecessary. . . The secrecy that surrounds section 215 leads us to a society where the 'thought police' can target us for what we choose to read or what Websites we visit." (ACLU, July 22, 2003)
Fact: The Patriot Act specifically protects Americans' First Amendment rights, and terrorism investigators have no interest in the library habits of ordinary Americans. Historically, terrorists and spies have used libraries to plan and carry out activities that threaten our national security. If terrorists or spies use libraries, we should not allow them to become safe havens for their terrorist or clandestine activities. The Patriot Act ensures that business records - whether from a library or any other business - can be obtained in national security investigations with the permission of a federal judge.
Examining business records often provides the key that investigators are looking for to solve a wide range of crimes. Investigators might seek select records from hardware stores or chemical plants, for example, to find out who bought materials to make a bomb, or bank records to see who's sending money to terrorists. Law enforcement authorities have always been able to obtain business records in criminal cases through grand jury subpoenas, and continue to do so in national security cases where appropriate. In a recent domestic terrorism case, for example, a grand jury served a subpoena on a bookseller to obtain records showing that a suspect had purchased a book giving instructions on how to build a particularly unusual detonator that had been used in several bombings. This was important evidence identifying the suspect as the bomber.
In national security cases where use of the grand jury process was not appropriate, investigators previously had limited tools at their disposal to obtain certain business records. Under the Patriot Act, the government can now ask a federal court (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court), if needed to aid an investigation, to order production of the same type of records available through grand jury subpoenas. This federal court, however, can issue these orders only after the government demonstrates the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a U.S. person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment.
Congress reviews the government's use of business records under the Act. Every six months, the Attorney General must "fully inform" Congress on how it has been implemented. On October 17, 2002, the House Judiciary Committee issued a press release indicating it is satisfied with the Department's use of section 215: "The Committee's review of classified information related to FISA orders for tangible records, such as library records, has not given rise to any concern that the authority is being misused or abused."
U.S. Attorney: Patriot Act is a sensible way to keep us safe
In the Sunday, July 31st edition of The El Paso Times (TX), U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton for the Western District of Texas praises the USA PATRIOT Act as an important tool that gives law enforcement the "ability to preserve and protect our nation's liberty in the face of continuing terrorist threats."
Sutton writes:
"Like all Americans, I hold dear our freedom from unwanted government intrusion into our private lives. As a people, we have always recognized that greater freedom may be accompanied by somewhat diminished security. As recent events have shown, terrorism poses a serious threat to both our security and freedom.
The Patriot Act strikes a reasonable and sensible balance between freedom and security to meet the real dangers we face. The act provides the essential means we need to defend ourselves against terrorists while maintaining and protecting the civil and constitutional rights we cherish."
Sutton's entire op-ed can be read here:
Attorney General: The Threat is Still Out There
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales appeared on FOX News Sunday with Brit Hume this weekend where he warned against complacency in the face of terror and stated his strong support of the USA PATRIOT Act - while warning that weakening the Act would make it much more difficult for law enforcement to protect America.
From the FOX News Sunday transcript:
"We now know from these attacks that the threat is still out there, that we shouldn't become complacent, that we do need authorities like the Patriot Act to help us, to help the law enforcement community gather information so that we can prevent additional attacks not only against America, but against America's friends and allies."
"But this is a very diabolical, very patient enemy. And what we can assure the American viewers is that we've done a lot to protect America. We now have a Department of Homeland Security. We have additional resources, personnel, and technology to deal with this issue. We're in the process of reorganizing the Department of Justice and the FBI, all to make sure that we can share information better. And all this is an attempt to ensure that the government is doing everything it can do to protect America and its allies."
"Well, what I've said is I would welcome clarifications and certain reforms in The Patriot Act. But I've always been very clear, very consistent in saying that I could not support provisions or changes, amendments to the act that would weaken the act, that would make it more difficult to protect America against these kinds of threats and against these kinds of attacks."
Read the entire transcript here:
Acting U.S. Attorney: The USA PATRIOT Act is a Vital Tool in the Information Arsenal
In the Sunday edition of Pueblo (CO) Chieftain, Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Leone declared that the USA PATRIOT Act is a “vital tool in the information arsenal” and urged the continuation of efficient information sharing between agencies to help protect America.
Leone writes:
We need accurate information about who is in our country, about where they came from, about unusual or suspicious activities that experience has shown may be related to terrorist plots. Unless we enhance our ability to prevent attacks by effectively gathering, sharing and analyzing information about our enemies we will have no chance to defeat them. We will be left to look back again and again, impotently, in the aftermath of brutal attacks, like the ones in London, and try to solve the mystery of who committed the crime.
The USA Patriot Act is, quite simply, a vital tool in the information arsenal for this 21st century war. The Patriot Act has been undergoing a robust and necessary debate in Congress. However, the Act has come under unwarranted and misinformed attack.
The Patriot Act allows criminal investigators to share information with intelligence officials and visa versa. This information sharing was prohibited by law before the Patriot Act. This prohibition contributed to our inability to detect and stop the attacks on 9/11. The Patriot Act modernized our ability to monitor criminal and terrorist communications by applying our wiretap laws to new technologies such as cell phones and e-mail without modifying or reducing the legal and constitutional restraints applicable to those tools. Wiretap orders must still be reviewed by, approved by and monitored by a federal court to prevent any abuse of this power.
Leone's entire op-ed can be read here:
Part II: More Patriot Act Facts
The Patriot Act Helps Keep America Safe
- The Patriot Act Has Helped Prosecutors Take Legal Action Against Terrorist Operatives And Their Supporters. Since September 11th, the United States has charged over 400 suspected terrorists, and more than half of those charged have already been convicted.
Law Enforcement Agents At The Federal, State, And Local Levels Rely On The Patriot Act Every Day. The Patriot Act has helped them break up terrorist cells in New York, Oregon, Virginia, and Florida.
Background: The Patriot Act Makes It Easier To Investigate Suspected Terrorists Within The United States.
The Patriot Act Encourages Information Sharing By Breaking Down The Wall Between Law Enforcement And Intelligence.
- Before The Patriot Act, Criminal Investigators Were Separated From Intelligence Officers By A Legal And Bureaucratic Wall. The Patriot Act helped tear down this wall, giving law enforcement and intelligence officers the ability to share information, work together, and bring terrorists to justice.
- Information Sharing Has Made A Difference. Two years ago, FBI agents in Ohio confronted Iyman Faris, and he was charged with providing support to al-Qaida after he, among other things, agreed to take part in a plot to destroy a New York City bridge. The capture came after an investigation that involved more than a dozen agencies in the Southern Ohio Joint Terrorism Task Force that was made possible by the Patriot Act. According to one FBI agent, "The Faris case would not have happened without sharing information. We would never have even had the lead."
The Patriot Act Gave Law Enforcement Agents The Ability To Use Tools Against Terrorists That Are Already Available Against Other Criminals.
- The Patriot Act Corrected Pointless Double Standards. Before the Patriot Act, it was easier to use a wiretap against a person committing mail fraud, or track the phone contacts of a drug dealer, or get the credit card receipts of a tax cheat, than to use these respective tools against a foreign terrorist.
- Roving Wiretaps Are Essential In Investigating International Terrorists. The Patriot Act extended the use of roving wiretaps, which were already permitted against drug kingpins and mob bosses, to international terrorism investigations. They must be approved by a judge. Without roving wiretaps, terrorists could elude law enforcement by simply purchasing a new cell phone.
The Patriot Act Brings The Law Into The 21st Century By Giving Law Enforcement Agents The Tools They Need To Fight New Kinds Of Crimes.
- The Patriot Act Updates The Law To Meet New Threats Like Computer Espionage And Cyber Terrorism. One common-sense provision allows Internet providers, without fear of being sued, to give information to law enforcement when it would help law enforcement prevent a threat of death or serious injury.
Many Safeguards Exist To Ensure The Patriot Act Is Applied Responsibly.
- Judicial Oversight Protects The Privacy Of Americans. Wiretaps and search warrants require a high level of proof and permission from a judge. The tools in the Patriot Act are fully consistent with the U.S. Constitution. As Senator Diane Feinstein said, "I have no reported abuses."
- Congress Also Has Oversight Responsibilities. Congress created a Civil Liberties Board to ensure the Patriot Act and other laws uphold civil liberties. The Patriot Act protects America and defends American liberties.
Final Thoughts