White House Engaged in Patriot Act Misinformation (ACLU)
 

ACLU Says White House Is Engaged in Patriot Act Misinformation Campaign; Releases Point-By-Point Response to Bush Falsehoods

April 22, 2004


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today released an item-by-item rebuttal to a slew of false claims that President Bush made in Buffalo this week about the controversial USA Patriot Act.

"The president's speech was misinformation, pure and simple," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director. "The administration is making a series of deliberate misstatements to deceive the American public."

In response to the president’s new campaign to remove the Patriot Act’s sunsets, the ACLU said it would prepare and release periodic detailed rebuttals on White House misinformation. Romero noted that the ACLU has taken similar issue with information presented by Attorney General John Ashcroft and produced a report, "Seeking Truth From Justice: The Justice Department's Campaign to Mislead The Public About the USA PATRIOT Act."

Point-by-Point Rebuttal

The President:

"By the way, the reason I bring up the Patriot Act, it’s set to expire next year. I’m starting a campaign to make it clear to members of Congress that it shouldn’t expire. It shouldn’t expire for the security of our country."

The Truth:

Less that 10 percent of the Patriot Act expires; most of the law is permanent and those portions that do sunset will not do so until December 31, 2005.

The President:

"And that changed, the law changed on- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren’t available for chasing down terrorists, see?"

The Truth:

Roving wiretaps were available prior to 9/11 against drug lords and terrorists. Prior to the law, the FBI could get a roving wiretap against both when it had probable cause of crime for a wiretap eligible offense. What the Patriot Act did is make roving wiretaps available in intelligence investigations supervised by the secret intelligence court without the judicial safeguards of the criminal wiretap statute.

The President:

"… see, I’m not a lawyer, so it’s kind of hard for me to kind of get bogged down in the law. (Applause). I’m not going to play like one, either. (Laughter.) The way I viewed it, if I can just put it in simple terms, is that one part of the FBI couldn’t tell the other part of the FBI vital information because of the law. And the CIA and the FBI couldn’t talk."

The Truth:

The CIA and the FBI could talk and did. As Janet Reno wrote in prepared testimony before the 9/11 commission, "There are simply no walls or restrictions on sharing the vast majority of counterterrorism information. There are no legal restrictions at all on the ability of the members of the intelligence community to share intelligence information with each other.

"With respect to sharing between intelligence investigators and criminal investigators, information learned as a result of a physical surveillance or from a confidential informant can be legally shared without restriction.

"While there were restrictions placed on information gathered by criminal investigators as a result of grand jury investigations or Title III wire taps, in practice they did not prove to be a serious impediment since there was very little significant information that could not be shared."

The President:

"Thirdly, to give you an example of what we’re talking about, there’s something called delayed-notification search warrants. … We couldn’t use these against terrorists [before the Patriot Act], but we could use against gangs."

The Truth:

Delayed-notification - or so-called sneak-and-peek search warrants - were never limited to gangs. The circuit courts that had authorized them in limited circumstances prior to the Patriot Act did not limit the warrants to the investigation of gangs. In fact, terrorism or espionage investigators did not necessarily have to go through the criminal courts for a covert search - they could do so with even fewer safeguards against abuse by going to a top secret foreign intelligence court in Washington.

For criminal sneak-and-peek warrants, the Patriot Act added a catch-all argument for prosecutors - if notice would delay prosecution or jeopardize an investigation - which makes these secret search warrants much easier to obtain.

The president’s sneak-and-peek misstatement clearly demonstrates that the Patriot Act is not limited to terrorism. In fact, many of the law’s expanded authorities can clearly be used outside the war on terrorism.

The President:

"Judges need greater authority to deny bail to terrorists."

The Truth:

The new presumptive detention that the president is proposing takes judicial authority away from the bail process. The presumption would take away the prosecution’s burden of showing that the accused is a danger or flight risk and instead puts it on the accused.

"Presidential recklessness with the facts is deeply troubling," Romero said. "We’ll be watching the president and his statements very closely during this campaign. He is clearly fighting a losing, defensive battle for the Patriot Act."

"President Bush clearly is attempting to silence his critics within the Republican Party, who believe that the Patriot Act went too far, too fast," Romero added.

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/Safe...06&MX=1212&H=1

For more on the ACLU's campaign to Keep America Safe AND Free, go to:

http://www.aclu.org/safeandfree)

Would you expect anything less from Bush?

Would you expect a different statement from the ACLU?

These people would criticize any Republican for anything, even admitting that the sky is blue.

They've actually critized Democrats administrations as well.

Are there any of their points that you dispute?

I'm basing my conclusions on a broad experience starting in college and media reports.

If you're willing to allow time for further research I can probably discuss a few, but they wont' get posted in a lightning-fast, up-to-the second fashion.

--add

They've also supported the Greek Sytem by supporting The Freedom of Speech and Association on Campus.

Sure, always loved to engaged in debates.

Sounds good--got any sources to back that up? Seriously, if the ACLU has done something that doesn't disparage mainstream Republicans for their "freedom of speech" I'd love to hear it.

(This will take a while, you know. I'm getting off of a break and back to the job......)

;)

--add

I thought you meant about the Patriot Act. If its about the ACLU, how can we base the debate on? I guess we can see how many case has been started or party to by the ACLU. Then we can correlate the answer by which party was in power. I dunno if I actually want to do it. Maybe when I'm at work, I could get some of the interns to do it, since they're busy surfing the internet anyway.

I think you know that I meant about the ACLU in general. Otherwise, you wouldn't have mentioned their alleged support of the Greek system. ;)

The discussion could get involved - but you said you like debate, so if you're up for it....

:)

adduncan...

you miss the point of the ACLU. They're allegiance is to the Constitution of the United States. They would defend your right to practice your religion, your right to associate freely, regardless of your political views.

I actually think that they recently defended two young children who were prohibited by their school from saying personal private prayer.

Does the ACLU seem to target the republican party more? sure, but it's only because of the actions they take that try to violate the Constitution and more specifically the Bill of Rights.

However, that does not lessen the importance of the ACLU, as this country needs someone to ask the hard questions, some group to support those who others won't, some organization that fights to prevent the descreation of the foundation of our country.

The other great thing about the ACLU is that they are able to look past their own personal feelings to hammer home the importance of equal application to all. They will support the right of a NeoNazi group to assemble just as much as they will oppose mandatory prayer in school. That to me is exemplerary of being principle centered , focused on the bigger picture than your personal values.

Betarulz.....

I'm well aware of the standard ACLU party line. "We support the Constitution."

Uh huh. I have my doubts.

Given that the US Constitution is a "living" document open to interpretation (at least that's how it's accepted) I question the ACLU's interpretations.

If you saw my above posts, you'll note I was looking for concrete examples, something I can look up. And that this kind of discussion could take at least days, given it takes time to track down the info.

So you say. I dont' think this is the case, and I'm entitled to say so. But at least I'm willing to re-examine my opinion to see if it holds true. Are you?


Maybe I do, maybe I don't. I'll make that decision for myself, thanx. Being a free thinker, I like to decide for myself what I do and dont' get.
;)

--add

Anyways, moving on away from ACLU talk. I find this rather scary. Who writes Bush's speeches?!

If we seperate out the difference between politically conservative and socially conservative it gives a clearer view.

A True political conservative should be a staunch defender of the Bill of Rights, in fact i am not sure you can be a real conservative if that isn't so.

In that case the ACLU is a conservative organization.

Social conservatism is different. Social conservatism is more about say community values than over arching principles found in a document.

So a social conservative thinks you have the right to excercise your free speech so long as it doesn't conflict too much with their world view.

A political conservative just thinks you have the right to excercise your right to free speech without much judging of the content.

Would you agree that might be an important distinction? Because otherwise the labels don't make a lot of sense. There are a lot of true political conservatives that are now sponsoring bills to limit the Patriot Act.

add,

Only we can see if the ACLU is biased toward the Democrats is to quantify the amount of courts they are partied to or have started. From the courts which they are parties to, we then can see how many of these cases are against which administration. Then, we can quantifily see if the ACLU is biassed toward the Democrats or that thesis is wrong.

Too bad it's the weekend. I can tell the interns to do something instead of browing the net.

Thank you, James. I agree.

I often don't agree with the ACLU, but in this case, I think they're right on. I've said before that the Patriot Act is the most dangerous infringement of our Consitutional Rights in memory.

Why didn't you care when most of it was enacted under Clinton? Is it because of the administration or the act? I think it's needed and the gains from it in the last few years have been immense.

-Rudey

The patriot act was passed under Clinton? I didn't know. But honestly, had I known that I was have thought he was as much a salad tosser for it as this group.

Rudey, I would have thought that you would believe in defending rights of privacy as well as freedome of speech? Thats not an attack. Just seeking clarification.

A, B, and C are legal.

I can talk about A, B, and C.

D is clearly illegal and E can be used for something illegal although it's legal.

Freedom of Speech allows me to talk about any and all of these things. The Patriot Act looks at if I'm doing D and if I'm using E in an illegal way as well. If I'm doing A, B, and C it won't matter.

Yes James I would like to have it that there won't be a need for this and I don't want anyone looking into my personal affairs, but I also don't want to be blown up at an airport because the records of some terrorist were protected.

-Rudey

It may be that parts of what later became known as the Patroit Act were passed under Clinton -- although I never heard of any -- but the bill known as The Patroit Act was passed after 9/11.

Most...not parts.

-Rudey

HR 3162 RDS

107th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3162
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
October 24, 2001


Above is the header from The Patriot Act.

The Name given as well as certain changes made would follow this but most of what is in the act was available because Clinton allowed for it.

Why is this a Republican or Democrat issue? It was passed 375-66in the House and 98-1 in the Senate - not too many Dems voted against eh (Kerry voted for it btw and still supports it)?

Much has been said about section 216 which only modified pen register and trap and trace.

The ACLU wants to talk about facts. Let's talk about them.

1) They acknowledge that most of what falls under the Patriot Act was available before.

2) The ACLU sued to find out what information the government had obtained from library records because it was so worried. Prior and during the suit, all sorts of audacious claims were made against Ashcroft. They went on to say 85 out of 1500 libraries had passed on information to the FBI. The result was (hold your applause) NOTHING because not once had there been an effort to obtain these library records.

-Rudey

I never called it a Republican/Democrat issue. I called it an infringement on our Constitutional Rights.

I took a look at the act, and it does indeed bring forth, and in some cases amend, many pieces from Title 18 of the US Code -- some of which I saw were written as long ago as the Eisenhower Administration -- probably some before since I don't have the time to read the whole thing.

However, the most worrisome issues to me are the ones passed soon after 9/11 -- which is on President Bush's watch.

By the way, I'll just bet that Howard Stern has had his phone tapped. I mean if the Nixon era folks were worried about groups like the Boy Scouts...

Well, Howard ain't one of them.

Everyone has their phone tapped in a way...but that's a whole other issue.

Since you're so worried about certain parts that were passed, let's ease your mind by talking about those parts and how they're different from before.

-Rudey
--And you didn't seem to care about Stern and freedom of speech before so let's not keep bringing him into this

Rudey, I think where people get upset is the parts the of the bill that were basically Law enforcements wish list . . a thing they could never get passed before. We are talking about parts that increase the latitude that law enforcement has when dealiing with situations that are not terrorist.

Just as the leeway for investigating suspected spies didn't bother most of us, investigating suspected terrorists doesn't phase us either. However, that shouldn't be used to just increase police powers across the board.

Generally you are not going to stop terrorists by turing all maericans into suspects that have to be watched.

9/11 was a simple elegant plan that took advantage of our "cooperate with hijackers and they won't hurt you mentality".

Adopting the Israeli apporach to cockpits would make that impossible.

Again, James if you'd like to talk about what details bother you, we can - not a general "what's changed after 9-11".

-Rudey