Critics Get it Wrong: Patriot Act Exemplifies Checks and Balances

[cyphen]

Quote:

To date, not one court or congressional committee has found evidence of any abuse of the powers under the Patriot Act.

Not one civil action has been filed against the government under Section 223, which allows citizens to seek damages for any willful violations of the Act.
...
Section 213, the so-called "sneak and peek" provision, authorizes delayed-notice criminal search warrants, but only pursuant to a court order. Moreover, judges can delay notice only if investigators demonstrate "reasonable cause" to believe that notification would result in death or physical harm to an individual, flight from prosecution, evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or otherwise jeopardize an investigation.
...
Section 215, the so-called "library" provision, does not even mention the word "library" and, as disclosed by the Department of Justice, has not once been used since its passage to obtain library or bookstore records, medical records or gun sale records. Critics have fancifully described the provision as positioning the government as a Big Brother intruding ruthlessly on the privacy of its ordinary citizens. For all the scare tactics, Section 215 merely remedied an anomaly that allowed grand juries for years to issue subpoenas for business records in criminal inquiries, but withheld that same power from courts in national security investigations.
...

All requests under Section 215 must first be granted judicial approval and fully reported by the Attorney General to Congress semi-annually. The provision cannot be used to investigate ordinary crimes or domestic terrorism, and expressly protects First Amendment rights. The records of average Americans, and even not-so-average criminals, are simply beyond its reach. PRCB's claim that Section 215 infringes on Americans' Fourth Amendment freedoms is simply untrue. It does not.
...
Section 802 defines domestic terrorism as a crime only when linked with a criminal act such as murder, hostage-taking or use of weapons of mass destruction in order to coerce governments or citizens to accept a political agenda--not the political agenda in itself. In fact, prior law adopted a more broadly sweeping definition of international terrorism as "violent acts or acts injurious to human life," and Congress correctly decided to narrow the scope of that definition for domestic terrorism in the Patriot Act. PRCB's claim that Section 802 jeopardizes protest activities protected by the First Amendment is simply wrong. It does not.
...
What is needed, however, is a constructive national debate that lowers the heat, turns up the light, and focuses on the facts. Striking the correct balance between liberty and security, the Patriot Act stands as a system of checks and balances at work.

Mr. Dinh, a professor of law at Georgetown University, was Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy from 2001 to 2003.

Sorry to ruin everyone's fun in railing against the supposedly Machiovelan (sp.) Patriot Act.

[EpyonMelee]

well that settles it boys, pack up and go home. no one will abuse this, and feel free to leave your house open, the FBI can anyway check it out without issuing a warrent, or even telling you.

[Lazywolf]

No one has abused it yet? How can they tell? Would potential abusers tell you after they do abuse
it? "Okay, guys, I just abused the system. You can put me in jail now."

Just because they think it hasn't been misused to date doesn't mean it won't in the future.
And, what kind of demented thinking suggests that "I'm okay with this act that allows the
government to intrude whenever they want. No one will ever use this power for ill." It's stupid!