|
Lawyers Dissect Patriot Act at Newport Forum By Sean Flynn/Daily News staff NEWPORT - Joseph Clifford of Jamestown, a former U.S. history teacher, stood up Thursday night in the community room of the Newport Public Library and summarized his reaction to the just-completed debate of the USA Patriot Act. "I feel this is a slippery slope this country has moved on to," he said. "Under the Fifth Amendment, no one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. That guarantee is being undercut. That's scary." The debate was between U.S. Attorney Robert Corrente, who defended the act, and attorney Jerry Elmer, who does pro bono work for the American Civil Liberties Union. The Social Justice Committee of the Channing Memorial Church and the Rhode Island Affiliate of the ACLU co-sponsored the debate. The Patriot Act is again under scrutiny because some provisions of the 342-page law are to expire this year. The U.S. Department of Justice wants those provisions made permanent. "Before 9/11, people doing criminal investigations could not talk to people doing intelligence and terrorism investigations," Corrente said. Passage of the Patriot Act eliminated the "wall" that stopped information sharing between agencies such as the FBI and CIA, he said. "The Patriot Act updated the tools for terrorism investigations and eliminated the stone-age rules in effect before passage," Corrente said. Moderator Jennifer Azevedo noted that reports based on federal Department of Justice data show that 88 percent of the arrests made under the Patriot Act were for non-terrorism related matters. Corrente was skeptical of the statistic. Elmer argued that when the United States established the CIA after World War II, the agency was not allowed to spy on Americans domestically, and for good reason. "The U.S. did not want a Gestapo," he said. When President Nixon used the CIA to spy domestically in the 1970s, "it shocked the conscience of the Judiciary Committee and was considered an impeachable offense," Elmer said. "Now it's been made legal by the Patriot Act." Elmer was especially critical of the provision of the act that allows "delayed notification searches." Under these so-called "sneak and peek" warrants, law-enforcement agents can enter a suspect's home and conduct a search without telling the suspect for an indefinite amount of time. The Fourth Amendment protects people against unreasonable search and seizures and sets up procedures such as the knock on the door and the announcement of the search, Elmer said. It was passed, he said, in response to British "writs of assistance" in the Colonial era that allowed arbitrary searches without authorities saying what they were searching for, or why. "The Patriot Act eviscerated the Fourth Amendment," Elmer said. He called on supporters of the Patriot Act who think this is right "to go to Congress and ask them to repeal the Fourth Amendment, and reinstate the writs of assistance." "I don't think it's fair to say the Patriot Act is a back-door evisceration of the Fourth Amendment," said Corrente. "That's baloney." Before such a warrant is issued, Corrente said, law-enforcement officials must still demonstrate probable cause to a court. He said there were delayed notification search warrants before passage of the Patriot Act in cases where advance notice would compromise the investigation. Elmer said the Patriot Act expands the use of these warrants to include any type of criminal investigation, not just foreign intelligence or terrorism investigations. Corrente said Congress held 18 hearings on provisions of the act and heard from 36 witnesses. "The law has a four-year track record and there are no documented cases of abuse," he said. The Patriot Act established the new Pfizer Court, which authorizes phone taps, library information subpoenas and delayed notification warrants. All the proceedings of the court are classified. Clauses, such as section 215 of the act, allow the FBI to obtain library records and prohibit librarians from reporting what the FBI requests. These secrecy clauses make it difficult to monitor possible abuses, Elmer argued. The debate went back and forth for almost two hours. Since the debate was co-sponsored by the ACLU, and people who are skeptical of the Patriot Act are more likely to attend such a forum, Corrente said he knew the audience might not be receptive to all his arguments. He was right. The questions asked after the debate were mostly critical of the provisions. But he noted that polls have shown "60 percent to 70 percent" are in favor of extending the act. "The opponent have just been more vocal," he said. He said the fact there has been no major terrorism attack in the United States since 9/11 may in part be attributed to the effectiveness of the Patriot Act. Elmer does not think the opposition to what he believes are the excesses of the act has been strong enough. "Where's the outrage?" he asked. "If you don't like it, do something about it." |