October 21, 2003 Letter to Senators Warner and Allen
and Representative Moran
and Representative Moran
PO Box 8208
Alexandria, VA 22306-8208
October 21, 2003
The Honorable John William Warner
United States Senate
225 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-4601
The Honorable George F. Allen
United States Senate
204 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-4604
The Honorable James P. Moran
U.S House of Representatives
2239 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-4608
Dear Senators Warner and Allen and Representative Moran:
As your constituent, I urge you to co-sponsor and support the Security and Freedom Ensured (SAFE) Act of 2003 (S 1709/HR 3352). This legislation would defend true American values and help keep us safe and free.
I have read that the PATRIOT Act allows the widespread use of so-called “sneak and peek” search warrants in which government agents can break into a home and take information without notifying the home’s owner. I believe that these intrusive forms of searches should be used in rare situations, not as a standard practice. I understand that the SAFE Act would begin to fix this problem by limiting the use of sneak and peek searches to three specific purposes. It would also ensure that the targets of these “sneak and peek” searches were notified of their occurrence within seven days unless a court approves extensions.
I also do not believe that the government should be allowed to indiscriminately investigate personal records. I have read that the SAFE Act would amend the PATRIOT ACT to require “individualized suspicion” that the records being sought in intelligence investigations are related to someone who is acting for a foreign government or organization. It also prohibits the government from embarking on fishing expeditions where they examine a large number of people’s records without any reasonable suspicion in the hopes that they might find a potential terrorist.
Finally, I believe that the PATRIOT Act is an attack on fundamental American values and that it needs to be fixed. The Constitution and its Bill of Rights emphasize the need for checks and balances on government agents and limits to their power. I understand that the PATRIOT Act rolled back key judicial oversight and gave law enforcement significant new powers that go beyond the war on terrorism. The SAFE Act would be an important step in bringing the PATRIOT Act back in line with American values.
Once again, I strongly urge you to support the SAFE Act (S 1709/HR 3352) which would correct the PATRIOT Act’s most infamous provisions. I didn’t serve my country as a Marine in order to witness my nation adopting the tactics of our enemies. My (and your) oath of office require us to Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America. The PATRIOT Act violates the 4th and 5th Amendments with reckless abandon. It is time for us to fix this mess and uphold our oaths of office.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this very important matter.
Sincerely,
James Landrith
December 8, 2003
Mr. James Landrith
PO Box 8208
Alexandria, Virginia 22306
Dear Mr. Landrith:
Thank you for contacting my office and sharing your thoughts regarding the Security and Freedom Ensured (SAFE) Act (H.R. 3352).
As you may know, the SAFE Act was introduced by Representative Otter on October 21, 2003. If enacted, this legislation would repeal elements of the controversial USA Patriot Act which would include putting reasonable limits on the government’s authority to obtain warrants for roving wiretaps, obtaining sneak and peek search warrants for physical evidence and reinstating protections for libraries, bookstores and businesses.
Currently, H.R. 3352 has been jointly referred to the House Judiciary and Select Intelligence Committees. As a strong proponent of appropriate efforts to protect the intrusion of government in people’s private lives, rest assured I am supportive of this bill and will continue to closely monitor H.R. 3352 as it progresses through committee.
On a related note, you may be pleased to know that I am a cosponsor of the Freedom to Read Protection Act (H.R. 1157). This legislation would reinstate legal standards for investigations of libraries and bookstores which were in place before the passage of section 215 of the USA Patriot Act. Section 215 of the Patriot Act grants the Director of the FBI the power to get a sealed warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court (FISA) to search businesses for any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.” These affected businesses include libraries, both public and private, and bookstores.
Under Section 215, the FBI does not need to show probable cause nor does it need to have any suspicion that the subject of the investigation is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power before it is granted a sealed warrant. Librarians and book store owners are also forbidden to report that an FBI search has occurred in their establishment.
Please feel free to visit my website at http://www.house.gov/moran which contains information on topics that may be of interest to you. Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue.
Yours truly,
James P. Moran
JPM/int2
January 8, 2004
Mr. James Landrith
P.O. Box 8208
Alexandria, Virginia 22306-8208
Dear Mr. Landrith:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the 2004 Intelligence Authorization Act. I appreciate your comments on this important matter.
As you may know, the Senate passed H.R.2417, the Intelligence Authorization Act, by voice vote after the bill underwent conference negotiations. The bill was not subject to amendment. In response to the constant threat of terrorism both at home and abroad, members of Congress and the Administration have worked in a bipartisan fashion to produce legislation to help law enforcement prevent additional acts of terrorism and to bring terrorists to justice.
In my view, any legislation that provides law enforcement with additional tools to combat terrorism must be balanced. On the one hand, changes in the law must be real and more than illusory. A measured, targeted enhancement in law enforcement’s authority to combat terrorism is long overdue. The fact is that many of our criminal laws were enacted years before innovations of modern technology such as email, cell phones, and instant messaging. These laws must be updated.
On the other hand, any changes in the law must not infringe upon the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. This great document has served as the foundation of this country, and our democracy, for over 200 years. Therefore, it is imperative that any legislation passed to combat domestic terrorism does not trespass on the individual rights guaranteed in our Constitution – rights that make America the greatest nation in the world.
Private corporations are allowed to maintain databases of their customers and their data can be summoned by law enforcement if such data would be potentially helpful as evidence in legal cases. The government, as a public entity, is entitled to access this information for use in prosecutions and investigations of suspected illicit activity. It is up to the co-equal third branch of government, the judiciary, to decide whether the practical application of these laws violates any rights guaranteed in our Constitution. To the extent that the courts find that they do, these laws should be amended.
In my view, the Intelligence Authorization Act strikes the right balance by providing law enforcement with new and updated tools to fight terrorism while fitting these measures well within the bounds of the Constitution.
In my efforts to help address pressing issues, it is important to maintain an awareness of the interests and concerns of the people I have the honor to represent. I value the thoughts and concerns that you have shared with me, and I will keep them in mind. Thank you again for contacting me.
With kind regards, I am
Sincerely,
John Warner
JW/sco