WASHINGTON -- The Senate responded to President Bush's request
for expanded anti-terrorist powers Thursday by approving a sweeping
program that would make it easier for U.S. law enforcement officials to
detect and detain suspected terrorists.
Satisfying the concerns of some civil liberties advocates, senators voted,
96 to 1, for broad measures that, among other provisions, would limit
detention of suspects to seven days rather than the indefinite time period
sought by the administration.
Senate leaders also began discussing an agreement with the House,
which is expected to pass its own similar legislation today, to put a
five-year limit on broadening the government's authority to conduct
electronic surveillance.
Among the powers approved by the Senate were measures allowing law
enforcement to eavesdrop on e-mail and other computer
communications without permission from a court, to obtain wiretapping
authority for multiple jurisdictions from a single court and to deploy
so-called \"roving wiretaps\" that permit investigators to monitor a
suspect's communications across multiple devices like cellular phones.
President Bush is expected to sign promptly the combined package that
Congress sends to his desk.
So urgent was the legislation that Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle
(D-S.D.) kept his colleagues in session until they passed the measures at
close to midnight.
Daschle also succeeded in getting the Senate overwhelmingly to reject
three amendments by Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.), who argued
that his proposals would keep law enforcement officers from invading
the privacy of innocent people with no connection to terror suspects.
Feingold cast the lone dissenting vote.
Daschle said he sympathized with Feingold's aims but cautioned that the
Senate bill already was a delicate bipartisan compromise that gave
protection to individual liberties.
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), liberal chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, said bipartisan efforts had produced \"the best bill possible,
one requiring Republicans and Democrats to come together.\"
Leahy added: \"We were able to remove a number of unconstitutional
parts the administration had proposed.\"
Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), the committee's ranking minority
member, said far-reaching legislation was needed because \"we live in a
dangerous and difficult world today with terrorist cells in this country.\"
To those concerned about the potential loss of civil liberties in increasing
the powers of the FBI and other agencies, Hatch advised them to
ponder \"the loss of civil liberties of those who died\" in the terrorist
attacks of Sept. 11.
But Hatch said the government cannot guarantee total protection of the
public \"when you have people willing to commit suicide to do us harm.\"
Advocating the need for roving wiretap authority, Sen. Dianne Feinstein
(D-Calif.), a Judiciary Committee member, explained that \"under current
law, law enforcement must get a wiretap order for each individual phone
line. Criminals and terrorists know this, so they often manage to defeat
surveillance by simply moving locations or exchanging countless
disposable or even stolen cell phones.\"
Besides expanding the government's power to eavesdrop on suspects
and detain suspects and potential witnesses for limited periods, the
Senate bill also mandates the sharing of investigative data between the
FBI and CIA when such information could pertain to terrorist activities.
Previously, such data often was protected by court order or by grand
jury secrecy.
In addition, the bill increases maximum penalties for terrorist-related
crimes that result in any deaths. It also triples the number of Border
Patrol officers, Customs Service agents and U.S. immigration inspectors
along the Canadian border, the boundary that some terrorists who
hijacked airliners last month are believed to have crossed. The bill
appropriates $50 million to upgrade technology for those agents.
Additionally, the Senate legislation includes strict anti-money-laundering
provisions designed to prevent terrorists from using U.S. banks in
furtherance of their activities, and it improves the ability of federal agents
to detect such use. <\/p>\n","contact":"","link":"http:\/\/www.latimes.com\/news\/nationworld\/nation\/la-101201terror.story","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/plain","summary":"Congress: Electronic eavesdropping, greater authority to detain suspects are among the broad measures passed, 96 to 1. \" . . .would limit detention of suspects to seven days rather than the indefinite time period sought by the administration.\" Oh boy, that was close!","numcomment":2,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/2001\/10\/senate_pas.txt","filesize":"5.4 kibibytes","article_url":"\/news\/2001\/10\/11724.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[{"id":11754,"heading":"...from EPIC Alert","article":"\r\n=======================================================================\r\n[1] Senate Approves Broad Anti-Terrorism Legislation\r\n=======================================================================\r\n\r\nThe U.S. Senate approved far-reaching anti-terrorism legislation late\r\nlast night, rejecting efforts to limit the measure's impact on the\r\nprivacy and civil liberties of American citizens. The Uniting and\r\nStrengthening America Act (S. 1510) was the product of negotiations\r\nbetween the Justice Department and the Senate leadership. In an\r\nunusual departure from normal legislative procedure, the bill was sent\r\ndirectly to the full Senate without any debate or consideration by the\r\nSenate Judiciary Committee. Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI) and other\r\ncolleagues, including Paul Wellstone (D-MI) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA),\r\nunsuccessfully attempted to have the Senate vote on three amendments\r\ndesigned to minimize the impact on civil liberties. \"What have we\r\ncome to when we don't have either committee or Senate deliberation or\r\namendments on an issue of this importance?\" Feingold asked. \"Each of\r\nus cares as much as anyone in this room about the fight against\r\nterrorism, but we want to make sure we don't go beyond that goal and\r\nintrude on our civil liberties.\" The unamended bill was approved by a\r\n96-to-1 vote, with Feingold dissenting.\r\n\r\nThe Senate bill contains most of the controversial provisions\r\ncontained in the initial Justice Department anti-terrorism proposal,\r\nincluding:\r\n\r\n- Expansion of \"pen register\" authority to Internet communications,\r\npermitting law enforcement monitoring of \"routing\" and \"addressing\"\r\ninformation upon a mere showing of \"relevance\" to an investigation\r\nwith virtually no judicial oversight. This new authority will likely\r\nincrease use of the FBI's Carnivore system.\r\n\r\n- Authorization of \"roving wiretaps\" for intelligence surveillance,\r\nallowing the issuance of \"generic\" court orders that could be served\r\non any communications facility (including universities and public\r\nlibraries) that a surveillance target might use.\r\n\r\n- Approval of government monitoring (without judicial authorization)\r\nof the communications of \"computer trespassers,\" even in some\r\ncircumstances where the affected user has permission to use the\r\ncomputer system.\r\n\r\n- Authorization of searches without notification to the targeted\r\nindividual (\"secret searches\"), in effect allowing police break-ins to\r\nprivate homes and offices.\r\n\r\n- Relaxation of existing limitations on the sharing of surveillance\r\nand other information between law enforcement and intelligence\r\nagencies, removing long-standing protections designed to prevent\r\ngovernment investigative abuses.\r\n\r\nThe House of Representatives is scheduled to consider its anti-\r\nterrorism bill, the PATRIOT Act (H.R. 2975), today. That measure\r\nwas approved by the House Judiciary Committee after deliberations that\r\nmarginally limited some of the most expansive powers contained in the\r\nJustice Department proposal. The House bill, for instance, does not\r\ncontain a \"secret search\" provision. Significantly, it contains a\r\n\"sunset\" clause that would terminate new surveillance authorities in\r\ntwo years unless they are reauthorized by Congress. The\r\nadministration is attempting to have the House consider the Senate\r\nbill in lieu of the legislation drafted by the House Judiciary\r\nCommittee.\r\n\r\nThe Senate anti-terrorism bill (S. 1510) is available at:\r\n\r\n http:\/\/www.epic.org\/privacy\/terrorism\/s1510.html\r\n\r\nThe House anti-terrorism bill (H.R. 2975) (PDF) is available at:\r\n\r\n http:\/\/www.house.gov\/judiciary\/hr2975terrorismbill.pdf\r\n\r\nEPIC's analysis of the original Justice Department proposal (the\r\nAnti-Terrorism Act of 2001) is available at:\r\n\r\n http:\/\/www.epic.org\/privacy\/terrorism\/ATA_analysis.html\r\n\r\n","author":"epic-bot","parent_id":11724,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2001-10-14 03:03:14","modified":"2001-10-14 03:50:15","fileurl":""},{"id":11755,"heading":"...from ACLU","article":"
\r\nThis legislation is designed to intimidate and suppress dissent. The best \r\nresponse can only be: TO GET OUT IN THE STREETS TOMORROW!!!!!\r\n\r\nNote: Berman, Sherman, Schiff, Waxman voted FOR this terrible bill. Let them \r\nknow how you feel!\r\n\r\nwww.aclu.org\r\n\r\nACLU \"Bitterly Disappointed\" in House-Senate Joint Passage of Anti-Terrorism \r\nLegislation \r\nFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE\r\nFriday, October 12, 2001 \r\n<\/PRE>\r\n\r\nWASHINGTON -- The American Civil Liberties Union said today that it was \r\nbitterly disappointed with the passage of anti-terrorism legislation, which \r\nmirrored closely the highly controversial original legislative proposals the \r\nAdministration submitted to the House of Representatives and the Senate.\r\n\r\n\"This bill has simply missed the mark of maximizing security and, at the same \r\ntime, minimizing any adverse effects on America's freedoms,\" said Laura W. \r\nMurphy, Director of the ACLU Washington National Office. \"Most Americans do \r\nnot recognize that Congress has just passed a bill that would give the \r\ngovernment expanded power to invade our privacy, imprison people without due \r\nprocess and punish dissent.\"\r\n
\r\nLate Thursday night, the Senate passed the so-called USA Act of 2001 (S. \r\n1510) 96 to 1 with very little debate. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) was the only \r\nSenator to vote against the bill. He also introduced three amendments - all \r\nof which were defeated by his colleagues - that would have fixed several of \r\nthe bill's more glaring problems. Murphy praised Sen. Feingold for his \r\n\"courageous attempt to protect American liberties.\"\r\n
\r\nThis morning, the House GOP leadership substituted legislative language which \r\nmatched closely both the Senate bill and the Administration's anti-terrorism \r\npackage. It replaced the language of the PATRIOT Act, a bill that had \r\nundergone significant revision in the House Judiciary Committee to protect \r\ncivil liberties. The new legislative language was agreed to in the wee hours \r\nof Friday morning and its substitution passed by a very thin margin after \r\nminimal debate.\r\n
\r\nBefore final passage, the modified PATRIOT Act (HR 2975) was met by robust \r\nopposition on the floor by House Democrats but, nevertheless, was finally \r\nratified by a vote of 337 to 79, with 3 Republicans voting against and 129 \r\nDemocrats voting in favor. \r\n
\r\nIt is as yet unclear whether the Senate and House will have to negotiate a \r\ncompromise between their respective bills in conference. Given the \r\nsimilarities between the bills, the Senate may take up the House bill, making \r\na conference unnecessary and \"therefore forestalling any real opportunity to \r\nmake a bad bill better,\" Murphy said. It is possible that the legislation \r\ncould reach the President's desk as early as next week.\r\n
\r\nPressure from the White House and the Department of Justice on Congress to \r\nquickly pass an anti-terrorism bill modeled closely on the Administration's \r\nproposals has been increasingly fierce over the past several days. The \r\nWashington Post criticized the Administration in an October 3rd editorial: \r\n\"Attorney General John Ashcroft continues implicitly to flog Congress for \r\nengaging in the balancing act that should have been his responsibility but \r\nthat he skipped past. He warns of the possibility of further terrorist \r\nactivity, which we have no doubt is real. The implication is that if it \r\noccurs it will be partly the fault of those who insist on modifying this \r\nbill.\"\r\n
\r\n\"In rushing through its legislation, the Administration has undercut any \r\nattempt at good faith negotiation with Democrats, the American public and \r\neven members of its own party,\" Murphy said. \"If the bill does go to \r\nconference, we urge lawmakers to reestablish in the bill the proper balance \r\nbetween the requirements of safety and the necessity of liberty,\" Murphy \r\nadded.\r\n
\r\nAccording to the ACLU, the most troubling provisions in both the Senate and \r\nthe modified House anti-terrorism legislation now include:\r\n\r\n
\r\nPermits Information Sharing: Allows information obtained during criminal \r\ninvestigations to be distributed to the CIA, NSA, INS, Secret Service and \r\nmilitary, without judicial review, and with no limits as to how these \r\nagencies can use the information once they have it.\r\n
\r\nAuthorizes \"Sneak and Peek Searches\": Authorizes expanded use of covert \r\nsearches for any criminal investigation, thus allowing the government to \r\nenter your home, office or other private place and conduct a search, take \r\nphotographs, and download your computer files without notifying you until \r\nlater.\r\n
\r\nAllows Forum Shopping: Law enforcement can apply for warrants in any court in \r\nany jurisdiction where it is conducting an investigation for a search \r\nanywhere in the country. This would make it very difficult for individuals \r\nsubjected to searches to challenge the warrant.\r\n
\r\nCreates New Crime of Domestic Terrorism: Creates an entirely new type of \r\ncrime, which is unnecessary for the prosecution of the \"War on Terrorism.\" By \r\nexpanding the definition of terrorism in such a way, the bill could \r\npotentially allow the government to levy heavy penalties for relatively minor \r\noffenses, including political protests.\r\n
\r\nAllows the CIA to Spy on Americans: Gives the Director of Central \r\nIntelligence the power to manage the gathering of intelligence in America and \r\nmandate the disclosure of information obtained by the FBI about terrorism in \r\ngeneral - even if it is about law-abiding American citizens - to the CIA.\r\n
\r\nImposes Indefinite Detention: Permits authorities to indefinitely detain \r\nnon-citizens, without meaningful judicial review.\r\n
\r\nReduces Privacy in Student Records: Allows law enforcement to access, use and \r\ndisseminate highly personal information about American and foreign students.\r\n
\r\nExpands Wiretap Authority: Minimizes judicial supervision of law enforcement \r\nwiretap authority in several ways, including: permitting law enforcement to \r\nobtain the equivalent of \"blank\" warrants in the physical world; authorizing \r\nintelligence wiretaps that need not specify the phone to be tapped or require \r\nthat only the target's conversations be eavesdropped upon; and allowing the \r\nFBI to use its \"intelligence\" authority to circumvent the judicial review of \r\nthe probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment. \r\n
\r\nLast Updated: 10-12-01 \r\n\r\n\r\n","author":"aclu-bot","parent_id":11724,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2001-10-14 03:05:31","modified":"2001-10-14 03:50:15","fileurl":""}]}