The Patriot Act and the 2003 Congressional Hearings

[Dover]

...."We will launch a rigorous, bipartisan examination of the issues Americans are concerned about when it comes to combating terrorism," said Mr. Hatch, a vocal proponent of the Patriot Act.
"We're going to cut through the confusion and distortion and get the facts necessary to find out if we are we protecting both our citizens' lives and their liberties."
Mr. Leahy, who worked closely with the Bush administration in the negotiations that produced the Patriot Act, has said the legislation "far more than most" required close congressional oversight...cont'd

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20031020-103003-1655r.htm

________

Really? Care to share your findings with us citizens? Why was this debate not carried out more publicly, and the Senate voice-vote on this most recent Patriot Act expansion, on the record?

____________


Here is the Oct. 2003 Congressional Hearings on Homeland Security that may fill in a lot of gaps about what the Congress is hearing and thinking on the subject:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/congress/2003_h/

Excerpt from Patrick Leahy's presentation:

I expect the Attorney General to participate in these hearings, and I am disappointed that we will not be hearing from him today. Unlike other senior Administration officials who regularly participate in oversight hearings, Attorney General Ashcroft has appeared before this Committee only once this year, and then only for a short time. This is a curious omission given his recent acknowledgment, in a letter to me, that regular and vigorous oversight by Congress provides an important assurance that investigations are conducted in accordance with the law and the Constitution.

I understand that the Attorney General is a busy man, but he has found time to travel the country to make other appearances, most specifically in leading a nationwide public relations campaign attempting to blunt criticism of the USA PATRIOT Act. Surely he can spare a few hours of his time for the Senate and for this oversight Committee. I know that Members on both sides have questions for him. When I chaired this Committee we made every effort to accommodate his busy schedule, and I am confident that Senator Hatch would do the same.

One of the focal points for this series of hearings will be the PATRIOT Act, which Congress passed two years ago this month, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Since its passage, the PATRIOT Act has raised concerns with citizens around the country and across the political spectrum. To date, anti-PATRIOT resolutions have been passed by more than 190 communities in 34 states.

Recently, the Justice Department dismissed the many local government resolutions condemning the PATRIOT Act by saying: “alf are either in cities in Vermont, very small population, or in college towns in California. It’s in a lot of the usual enclaves where you might see nuclear free zones, or they probably passed resolutions against the war in Iraq.”

It is unfortunate that the Justice Department felt it appropriate to ridicule these grass-roots efforts to participate in an important national dialogue. The opportunity to engage in public discourse is one of the essential rights of Americans, and I am proud that Vermont towns are among those dedicated to thinking about and acting on these important issues. More importantly, the concerns expressed in my home state are being echoed by Americans in all 50 states. These communities represent millions upon millions of Americans, not just a few liberty-and-privacy-conscious Vermonters, as the Justice Department has insinuated. Impugning Vermonters, dedicated librarians and United States Senators for asking questions and raising concerns does not advance the debate or instill public confidence in the Ashcroft Justice Department’s use of the vast powers it wields. In fact, it achieves the opposite.

In a democracy there will always be an inherent tension between government power and privacy rights, and the threat of terrorism has magnified that tension. When you overlay that with excessive government secrecy, and the lack of cooperation and accountability that have characterized the approach taken by this Administration in its dealings with the Congress and the public, you further compound the tension and the risks to our free society. First, undue secrecy undermines the system’s built-in checks and balances. And over time it corrodes the public’s faith that their government is not crossing the line and treading on the rights and freedoms of the American people.

While we have another two years before some of the powers we granted in the PATRIOT Act expire, it is not too soon for this Committee to take a hard look at how those powers are being used: What is working, what is not, and what can we do better?

The PATRIOT Act has become the most visible target of public concerns about governmental overreaching, but those concerns extend even further, as will these hearings. The next hearing in this series will address a broad array of civil liberties issues, including issues relating to the 9/11 detentions that the DOJ Inspector General raised in his excellent report earlier this year. Later hearings will examine other issues raised by the fight against terrorism, which I hope will include the treatment of so-called “unlawful combatants,” information-sharing with our State and local partners, and the pressing needs of our first responders.

Instead of the Attorney General, we will hear today from the recent nominee to head the Criminal Division and two U.S. Attorneys. This hearing has been in the works for some time, and the witnesses were selected by Senator Hatch more than two weeks ago, yet we still did not receive their testimony in a timely fashion. I do not blame the witnesses, who I assume are busy on substantive matters. But I am disappointed in the Administration’s lackadaisical approach to these oversight matters. When the Attorney General did not timely submit his testimony for a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee in May 2002, Chairman Sensenbrenner cancelled that hearing.

I thank our Chairman for allowing all Senators to make a short opening statement, and suggest that he then proceed immediately to questions so that we can use the time we have today most effectively. That will also give us all time to read and consider the late-arriving testimony of the Administration representatives in due course, and to follow up as appropriate....



http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/congress/2003_h/031021-leahy.htm

[mkultra]

1. good info

Thanks

[Dover]

2. bump

..