Security - What's New - Archive

WomenMatter will continuously post updates on all this and other issues as we monitor the continuing philosophical and practical debates nationwide. Please check back often for updates. Past updates are available for reference on the Security Archives page.

Behind Closed Doors: Intelligence Committee Debates Expansion of Patriot Act

The Senate Intelligence Committee passed a bill proposed by its chairman, Pat Roberts (R- Kansas), that would expand the controversial Patriot Act by allowing the F.B.I. to issue its own subpoenas for personal records and documents.

The bill has Democrats and civil liberties advocates fuming, and if the legislation makes it to the Senate floor, it’s sure to incite a major battle. But first, the bill must pass through various committees, including the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has primary jurisdiction over the matter.

The details

Senator Roberts, President Bush, and the Justice Department want the F.B.I. to be able to issue subpoenas in terror investigations without a judge’s approval.

They argue that these "administrative subpoenas" would help investigators to track terror suspects more quickly, thereby improving national security. And proponents note that the F.B.I. already can use this power when investigating 300 other types of crimes, including drug trafficking and health care fraud. It makes sense, they say, to extend the same authority to the war on terror.

Democrats argue that the bill would give the F.B.I. unrestricted authorization over personal documents like financial, medical, and tax records. They say that investigators should have to go to a judge before having access to such information.

The bill’s supporters counter that safeguards are built into the legislation. Administrative subpoenas would have to be authorized by F.B.I senior officials, and the Justice Department would have to report its use of the power twice a year.

Democrats may be willing to compromise with an amendment by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D- California) that would create even more protection. It would authorize administrative subpoenas for "emergency circumstances" only, with the signature of a federal prosecutor.

Despite the various safety measures, Lisa Graves, senior counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argues that the bill would greatly expand the government’s power to peek into our private lives. Further, opponents complain that the bill’s mark up took place during a closed-door session; they say that the Patriot Act discussion should have been open to the public.

Private debate

Despite such criticism, the Intelligence Committee deliberated in secret. Senator Roberts claimed that the meetings had to remain private since they included classified material about terror investigations.

Along with Roberts’ proposal, the Intelligence Committee decided to make permanent the Patriot Act provisions that are set to expire. Among them is Section 215, most famous for allowing the F.B.I. to obtain an individual’s library records.

It is President Bush’s legislative priority to make permanent the expiring provisions before they sunset in December 2005, but he may not have the support that he needs in Congress. Many Senators, including Republicans, are ambivalent about the Patriot Act, and several state legislatures have passed resolutions opposing the law.

Patriot Act basics

In the aftermath of September 11, Congress passed the USA Patriot Act with overwhelming support.

Many leaders believe that better intelligence could have prevented the terrorist attacks, and the Patriot Act is a response to that failed intelligence. It increases the government’s ability to collect information that may (or may not) lead to the capture of terrorists.

The Patriot Act is made up of both temporary and permanent provisions that give the Justice Department and the FBI new freedoms. Some of the temporary provisions allow for the interception of email and phone calls, the seizure of voice mail, and/or physical or electronic surveillance of suspected terrorists.

Privacy versus protection?

It goes without saying that an increase in surveillance equals a decrease in privacy. To what extent are you willing to give up your privacy for protection? Although it may be unlikely that you yourself are being watched, do you think it is appropriate for privacy protection to decrease in general? Should we limit one freedom to protect another?

What do you think?

WomenMatter is a place to discuss life issues with other women. We don’t want to wedge women apart, but rather bring them together to dialogue. To log onto one of our online forums, click here.

WomenMatter encourages women to educate themselves on the issues and then approach their representatives with ideas.

Even though the election is over, your voice is vital. Make sure your leaders know what’s important to you. To see how your representatives vote and to contact them, click here.

WomenMatter is dedicated to empowering women to participate in the political process. To do this we have invested in the most in-depth NONPARTISAN information, because we trust each woman to make up her own mind.

• We track nine issues every week and update this website several times a week.
• We launch after school GirlsMatter Clubs in middle and high schools to grow the next generation of politically aware women through a full curriculum and startup kit on girlsmatter.com.
• We do continuous research to make sure that we are meeting the needs of women across the country of all ages, races, incomes, preferences, and religions.
• We provide partnerships with nonpartisan organizations that provide services to women and advocate for them.

We offer all our services free of charge without memberships or subscriptions. To help us maintain this work - not just in election years but as a continuing part of women’s lives - please make a tax deductible donation, click here.

Update Posted on: 6/9/2005