"Terrorist tipoff" amendment.

[UltraQuiet]

Section 213 of the Patriot Act, rooted in a 1978 foreign intelligence surveillance law, grants federal agents the right to search the homes of suspected terrorists and spies with secret court approval but without prior notice to the suspect.

From here: CNN (Hopefully that will satisfy our resident copyright cop. I'm kidding Michael. )

So do we continue to operate as we have for 35 years (expanded by the PA to include suspected terrorists) or do we put the procedure for these warrants back into the hands of the normal court system?

 

[zantac]

The house voted to repeal that part of the Patriot act on tuesday I believe.

Here's the vote on the amendment

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

My opinion is that the "regular" court system is how warrants ought to be handled. There may be times when this is not so, but the judge needs to see convincing evidence of why that is, and not "take our word for it"

"Special" warrants need to be judiciously dealt out.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
My opinion is that the "regular" court system is how warrants ought to be handled. There may be times when this is not so, but the judge needs to see convincing evidence of why that is, and not "take our word for it"

"Special" warrants need to be judiciously dealt out.

There is still a court that has to be convinced although it would seem convincing that court isn't too hard and it can be done after the fact (within 72 hours). Like I said we've been doing this for 35 years, the PA expanded the scope somewhat. Here's another article:

CNN

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
My opinion is that the "regular" court system is how warrants ought to be handled. There may be times when this is not so, but the judge needs to see convincing evidence of why that is, and not "take our word for it"

"Special" warrants need to be judiciously dealt out.

There is still a court that has to be convinced although it would seem convincing that court isn't too hard and it can be done after the fact (within 72 hours). Like I said we've been doing this for 35 years, the PA expanded the scope somewhat. Here's another article:

CNN

I find that second article more disturbing. The fact that it may have been going on for 35 years does not change the fact that a defendent cannot practically challange the basis for the warrant, which is fundamental to defense. You and I and all of us have seen misuse of authority by prosecutors in a more open system. What disincentive is there to prevent abuses if the basis of a warrant can go automatically unchallanged? Also, who are the judges in this system? How do they come to their decisions about the merits of the warrant? Are there guidelines, and if so who sees they are followed? The people applying for the warrant? I am not comfortable with this.

What is your opinion UQ?

 

[Moonbeam]

When oppression exists even the bird dies in the nest.

We become what we fear.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
My opinion is that the "regular" court system is how warrants ought to be handled. There may be times when this is not so, but the judge needs to see convincing evidence of why that is, and not "take our word for it"

"Special" warrants need to be judiciously dealt out.

There is still a court that has to be convinced although it would seem convincing that court isn't too hard and it can be done after the fact (within 72 hours). Like I said we've been doing this for 35 years, the PA expanded the scope somewhat. Here's another article:

CNN

I find that second article more disturbing. The fact that it may have been going on for 35 years does not change the fact that a defendent cannot practically challange the basis for the warrant, which is fundamental to defense. You and I and all of us have seen misuse of authority by prosecutors in a more open system. What disincentive is there to prevent abuses if the basis of a warrant can go automatically unchallanged? Also, who are the judges in this system? How do they come to their decisions about the merits of the warrant? Are there guidelines, and if so who sees they are followed? The people applying for the warrant? I am not comfortable with this.

What is your opinion UQ?

Quite honestly I haven't made up my mind. Do a search on FISA, there's some interesting reading, background is available on how the court works, etc. If I remember correctly there is Congressional oversight of the court. At some point in any system you come to a point of "trust", where no more oversight is available. Clearly there are Constitutional issues with this system however I view the Constitution as base guidance, not a suicide pact and I agree with the Federal/Supreme courts rulings that give the executive branch a great amount of leeway in dealing with issues of national security, fighting wars, combating terrorism, etc. I guess my biggest criticism of this system is that the basis of the warrant never has to revealed to the accused. But if we are dealing with "methods and capabilities" should we reveal it? It is a complicated issue that goes well beyond "Ashcroft is evil" or "We're doing it for your own protection.", two things I'm sure we'll see written here before this thread is through.

The system appears to be working however. The House voted on it, the Senate has it in committee I think. Interesting vote. The R's were evenly split, almost every D voted to repeal. Plenty of fodder for "They're stripping you of your civil liberties!" and "They're soft on crime and terrorism!"

 

[zantac]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmithWhat disincentive is there to prevent abuses if the basis of a warrant can go automatically unchallanged? Also, who are the judges in this system? How do they come to their decisions about the merits of the warrant? Are there guidelines, and if so who sees they are followed? The people applying for the warrant? I am not comfortable with this.

The judges don't even have to know what the warrant is for, all the feds need say is that it involves terrorism and the judge legally has to give them a warrant. Far too much room for abuse.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: zantac

Originally posted by: WinstonSmithWhat disincentive is there to prevent abuses if the basis of a warrant can go automatically unchallanged? Also, who are the judges in this system? How do they come to their decisions about the merits of the warrant? Are there guidelines, and if so who sees they are followed? The people applying for the warrant? I am not comfortable with this.

The judges don't even have to know what the warrant is for, all the feds need say is that it involves terrorism and the judge legally has to give them a warrant. Far too much room for abuse.

I've never read that anywhere. Do you have a link.

 

[zantac]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

I've never read that anywhere. Do you have a link.

Ah crap, its part of the Patriot act, and tis one of the main arguments against the 'search and seizure' section of the resolution. If i had not of been drinking for the main portion of the night i would have found a better link or looked through the 400~ pages of the resolution to find the actual reference.
here
The Act amends FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) to allow the FBI to secretly conduct a physical search or wiretap primarily to obtain evidence of a crime without proving probable cause of crime. As long as the FBI asserts to a FISA court that the purpose of the search is "intelligence", the court will grant the warrant even if the person is an American citizen as long as the sole purpose of the search is not to investigate activities protected by the First Amendment. The FISA court will issue an order to the FBI if the FBI asserts that the warrant is for a foreign intelligence investigation. Again, keep in mind that the term "foreign intelligence" as defined by the Act includes communications that criticize American foreign policy.

In other words, the FBI does not have to present evidence of a crime, or criminal activity to obtain a warrant. It only needs to allege that the activity to be investigated is connected to foreign intelligence.