|
Not certain why you're still getting off on criticizng John Edwards. But I'll submit this to you, from Rich Persaud's excellent dotpeople website:
Edwards sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was his job to participate in the writing of the Patriot Act. It is not meaningful to criticize Edwards for either his vote or the fact of his participation in the act. Such criticisms can only be directed against those outside of a committee directly related to the Patriot Act.
What can be judged are Edwards' specific contributions to the Patriot Act, such as particular clauses he worked to add or remove from the Act. If someone has those details, I would like to learn more about them. But, the existence of Patriot Act II suggests that Democratic participants in the drafting of Patriot Act I succeeded at least partially in limiting its scope.
Edwards supports revision of the Patriot Act and the removal of domestic intelligence duties from the FBI. Edwards will create a new agency for domestic intelligence, along with a new oversight agency, the Office of Civil Liberties. The goal is to have domestic intelligence agents who are trained to assault terror and not the Constitution of the United States.
Update (1/21/04)
The Senate debate excerpt below includes Edwards advocating for a sunset provision. There was a subsequent House-Senate discussion of the Act, for which I could find no transcript. The final version of the Act did include a sunset provision. Pointers to a transcript of that debate would be appreciated.
From the Senate Floor Debate, 10/11/01 :
---
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1510, the Uniting and Strengthening America Act.
In the aftermath of September 11, we face two difficult and delicate tasks: to strengthen our security in order to prevent future terrorist attacks, and at the same time, to safeguard the individual liberties that make America a beacon of freedom to all the world.
I believe that when the President signs this anti-terrorism legislation into law, we will have achieved those two goals as best we now can.
The act is a far-reaching bill. I will mention just a few key aspects of that bill.
First, the legislation brings our surveillance laws into the 21st century. Here are two of many examples. Under current law, the FBI can use a basic search warrant to access answering machine messages, but the FBI needs a different kind of warrant to get to voice mail. This law says the FBI can use a traditional warrant for both. Another
example: Under current law, a Federal court can authorize many electronic surveillance warrants only within the court's limited jurisdiction. If the target of the investigation is in the judge's jurisdiction, but the subject of the warrant is technically an internet service provider located elsewhere, the warrant is no good as to that ISP. This bill allows the court overseeing an investigation to issue valid warrants nationwide.
Second, the act gives law enforcement officers and the foreign intelligence community the ability to share intelligence information with each other in defined contexts. For example, the act says that under specified conditions, the FBI may share wiretap and grand jury information related to foreign- and counter-intelligence. I appreciate concerns that this information-sharing authority could be abused. Like Chairman Leahy, I would have preferred to see greater judicial oversight of these data exchanges. But I also believe we simply cannot prevail in the battle against terrorism if the right hand of our government has no idea what the left hand is doing.
Third, the act enhances intelligence authorities under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). When I met with FBI agents in North Carolina shortly after September 11, they told me their number one priority was to streamline the FISA process. We've done that. We've said, for example, that the renewal periods of certain key FISA orders may be longer than the initial periods. This makes sure the FBI can focus on investigations, not duplicative court applications.
A more controversial change concerns the purpose of FISA surveillance. Under current law, a FISA wiretap order may only enter if the primary purpose of the surveillance is foreign intelligence gathering. The administration initially proposed changing the ``primary purpose'' requirement to a requirement of ``a purpose,'' any foreign
intelligence purpose. At a recent Intelligence Committee hearing, I was one of several Senators to raise constitutional questions about the Administration's initial proposal. The last thing we want is to see FISA investigations lost, and convictions overturned, because the
surveillance is not constitutional. S. 1510 says that FISA surveillance requires not just ``a purpose,'' but ``a significant purpose,'' of foreign intelligence gathering. That new language is a substantial improvement that I support. In applying this ``significant purpose''
requirement, the FISA court will still need to be careful to enter FISA orders only when the requirements of the Constitution as well as the statute are satisfied. As the Department of Justice has stated in its letter regarding the proposed FISA change, the FISA court has ``an
obligation,'' whatever the statutory standard, ``to reject FISA applications that do not truly qualify'' as constitutional. I anticipate continued close congressional oversight and inquiry in this area.
A forth step taken by this legislation is to triple the number of Border Patrol, INS inspectors, and Customs Service agents along our 4,000-mile northern border. Today there are just 300 border patrol agents to guard those 4,000 miles. Orange cones are too often our only defenses against illegal entries. This bill will change that.
Fifth, the bill expedites the hiring of translators by the FBI. It is unthinkable that our law enforcement agents could have critical raw intelligence that they simply cannot understand because they do not know the relevant language. This statute will help to change that state
of affairs.
Finally, the bill makes the criminal law tougher on terrorists. We make it a crime to possess a biological agent or toxin in an amount with no reasonable, peaceful purpose, a crime to harbor a terrorist, a crime to provide material support to terrorism. And we say that when you commit a crime of terrorism, you can be prosecuted for that crime for the rest of your life, with no limitations period. Statutes of limitations guarantee what lawyers call ``repose.'' Terrorists deserve no repose.
As Chairman Leahy and Senator Hatch have both said, this legislation is not perfect, and the House-Senate Conference may yet make improvements. For example, the Conference might clarify that, as to aliens detained as national security threats, the law will secure the due process protections and judicial review required by the Constitution and by the Supreme Court's recent decisions in Zadvydas v. Davis and INS v. St. Cyr. The Conference might also sensibly include a
<[Page S10590>]
sunset of the new surveillance authorities, ensuring that Congress will reconsider this bill's provisions, which touch such cherished liberties, in light of further experience and reflection.
The bill is not perfect, but it is a good bill, it is important for the Nation, and I am pleased to support it.
* * *
An article on Edwards and The Patriot Act:
Edwards: AG abuses power of Patriot Act
By Dan Tuohy
Staff Writer
MERRIMACK -- Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards last night proposed repealing parts of the USA Patriot Act in order to insulate civil liberties against the measure's broad anti-terrorism measures.
He accused Attorney General John Ashcroft, who visited New Castle yesterday to promote the Patriot Act, of abusing the discretion required to make the new law work within the framework of the Bill of Rights.
Ashcroft's New Hampshire stop was part of a national tour to highlight the need for the law. He defended the law after meeting with police chiefs. It enables national security forces to fight the war on terrorism without compromising liberties, he said.
Edwards, who voted for the act, questioned the government's abilities to view personal library and business records.
"We can't forget what it is we're supposed to be fighting for," he said during a town-hall style meeting. "We cannot let people like John Ashcroft take away our rights, take away our liberty, take away our freedom."
The Edwards reform plan includes:
r Establish new protections for library and business records, limit the government's authority to search homes without giving people notice and require the Department of Justice to disclose more information about its use of special surveillance powers.
r Strengthen due process rights for people arrested on American soil as an "enemy combatant" without access to a lawyer or a day in court. He says appropriate limits on choice of lawyers and judicial forum could be imposed.
r Creation of a new Homeland Intelligence Agency. He says the Federal Bureau of Investigation is a law enforcement agency, not an agency able to track and stop terrorists. The agency would focus entirely on intelligence gathering and analysis, have an independent Office of Civil Liberties, and be subject to new judicial review and public disclosure requirements.
Edwards, an attorney and first-term U.S. senator from North Carolina, proposed the reform a day after announcing he would not seek re-election to his Senate seat in order to focus on running for president.
Members of the crowd of about 100 at Edwards' campaign stop in Merrimack supported his call for reform.
Karen Heaton of Manchester said people cannot take constitutional liberties for granted. "There is no need Americans should have to sacrifice any liberties," she said.
Evan Fulmer, who works for a chemical company, called Ashcroft a fascist. Rose Arthur, a college administrator from Merrimack, criticized the Patriot Act and Bush for asking Congress on Sunday to approve his $87 billion request for Iraq war and reconstruction efforts. She wants Congress to block the funding request.
"How are we going to get the money for a specious war?" she asked.
Edwards said he would review the appropriation and the need, but he sees Bush's request as highlighting the need to build an international coalition to stabilize Iraq.
Claire Ebel, director of the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union, continues to challenge the constitutional merit of the law. She said the Patriot Act allows the government to spy on Americans without cause or reason.
"The Constitution protects our rights and sets up a system of checks and balances," Edwards said in statement condemning the Patriot Act. "John Ashcroft has trampled on our rights and claimed unprecedented power. We need to rein in this Attorney General."
Warren Rudman, the former U.S. senator from New Hampshire and terrorism expert and author of the Hart-Rudman report on vulnerability, believes America will be the target for another terrorism strike in the near future. In an interview with New Hampshire Public Radio last night, Rudman criticized the extensive "sneak and peek" powers granted by the Patriot Act and called for some reform.
The major Democratic candidates running for president routinely question and criticize the Patriot Act for its unchecked powers.
U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who also voted for the Patriot Act, said police and intelligence officials must have the tools to protect America against terrorism. He also wants to review how the law is working in order to strike the right balance.
"I made clear at the time that I didn't think the law should be used to compromise our nation's ironclad commitment to civil liberties, and I supported the Democratic leadership's successful effort to include a sunset provision to keep tabs on how the administration used their new authority," Lieberman said.
Congressman Dick Gephardt of Missouri promised reform.
"This visit is more about a photo op than a legitimate discussion of the increasing authority of the attorney general," he said in a statement. "John Ashcroft has proven through bad judgment and divisiveness that he is the wrong man to serve in one of the most important jobs in our nation right now. He will not last five minutes in my administration."
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
