Back

White House Steps Up to Protect Americans

- Thursday, February 25, 2010 |
Share:

In late December, the Senate passed a 60-day extension of three key-and sometimes controversial-provisions of the USA Patriot Act, known as the “lone wolf,” “business records,” and “roving wiretap” provisions.

  • The “lone wolf” allows the government to track a non-American suspect who has no discernable tie to a terrorist group or foreign power.

  • The “business records” provision allows the government to compel third parties (telephone companies, banks, etc.) to provide them access to a suspect’s record without notifying the suspect.


    • In late December, the Senate passed a 60-day extension of three key-and sometimes controversial-provisions of the USA Patriot Act, known as the “lone wolf,” “business records,” and “roving wiretap” provisions.

    • The “lone wolf” allows the government to track a non-American suspect who has no discernable tie to a terrorist group or foreign power.

    • The “business records” provision allows the government to compel third parties (telephone companies, banks, etc.) to provide them access to a suspect’s record without notifying the suspect.

    • “Roving wiretaps” allow investigators to apply one FISA court warrant to all forms of electronic communications used by the suspect (phone, cell phone, BlackBerry, home computer, etc.) if the government can show that the suspect is switching devices to evade detection.

    It was our hope at the time that the Senate would face up to the requirements of domestic security and reauthorize the provisions through 2013, when the entire Act will come up for renewal. Not quite. In a unanimous voice vote, however, the Senate did pass a one-year extension of the three provisions.

    Interestingly, according to a publication that covers Capitol Hill, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy tried to add additional restrictions to the provisions, but was running out of time-the provisions would have expired Sunday-and the Obama Administration argued against letting that happen. The Senate concurred, as do we.

    Solicitor General Elena Kagan also took the security hard line before the Supreme Court this week. Federal law prohibits support for organizations deemed by the State Department to be terrorist. The Humanitarian Law Project says it only wants to talk to some of those organizations to help them pursue peaceful ways to end conflict and “advocate for peace,” and “inform (them) about international human rights.” It argues the prohibition on speech is unconstitutional.

    Kagan said Congress had determined that it was impossible to separate support of any terrorist organization’s “peaceful” activities from its violent goals. “Hezbollah builds bombs. Hezbollah also builds homes. What Congress decided was when you help Hezbollah build homes, you are also helping Hezbollah build bombs. That’s the entire theory behind this statute, and it’s a reasonable theory.” She called the law “a vital weapon in this nation’s continuing struggle against international terrorism.” She argued further that speech could not be separated from other activities on behalf of those organizations.

    What the Supreme Court will ultimately decide is unclear.

    What is clear is that the Obama Administration, faced with the exigencies of war against our country by terrorists or unconventional actors, came down convincingly on the side of security for the American people and the very reasonable demand that Americans not support our enemies in deed-or in word.