Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 13:58:16 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor <freematt@coil.com>
From: Matthew Gaylor <freematt@coil.com>
Subject: Guide to the Surveillance Provisions in the Anti-terrorism Bills
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"

The ACLU has published a guide to the competing 
wiretapping/surveillance provisions in the Administration, House and 
Senate versions of the anti-terrorism bill.. The guide can be found 
at <http://www.aclu.org/congress/patriot_chart.html>.

On September 19, only eight days after the tragic terrorist attacks 
on New York and Washington, the Bush Administration unveiled its 
proposed Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), legislation that included many 
changes to the nation's current surveillance laws. The chart outlines 
the changes proposed by the ATA, and the ACLU's objections to those 
changes.. Also compared are the latest versions of anti-terrorism 
legislation being considered in the House and Senate.


The ACLU has five overall concerns about the surveillance provisions 
of the legislation being discussed:

*They would reduce or eliminate the role of judges in ensuring 
that law enforcement wiretapping is conducted legally and with proper 
justification. There is no reason why the requirement to get a court 
order for surveillance should slow down the investigation of suspects 
for which there is evidence of terrorist activities.


*They would dangerously erode the longstanding distinction 
between domestic law enforcement and foreign intelligence collection, 
which protects Americans from being spied upon by their own 
intelligence agencies, as happened during the Cold War.


*The definition of "terrorism" is too broad, permitting the 
special surveillance powers granted in this legislation to be applied 
far beyond what is commonly thought of by the term. Under the 
definition proposed by the Administration, even acts of simple civil 
disobedience could lead organizations such as People for the Ethical 
Treatment of Animals (PETA) to become targets of "terrorist" 
investigations.


*Many of the expansions in surveillance authority being 
considered are not limited to even the broad definition of terrorism 
investigations.


*The Congress is moving unnecessarily and irresponsibly 
quickly on these measures. It takes a great deal of time to deal with 
complex issues such as how to apply wiretap law to the Internet, and 
to think through all the possible unintended consequences of 
legislative language. Few of the provisions being discussed are 
needed for the current terrorism investigations, so Congress should 
take the time to do it right.


Security and civil liberties do not have to be at odds. Law 
enforcement authorities already have great leeway under current law 
to investigate suspects in terrorist attacks - including broad 
authority to monitor telephone and Internet communications. In fact, 
under current law, judges have rejected only three federal or state 
criminal wiretap requests in the last decade.




Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722  ICQ: 106212065   Archived at 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/