home > newsroom Senator Hatch Hears Concerns About Post-9/11 Government Actions April 16, 2004 The American Civil Liberties Union of Utah testified with a diverse local coalition before a Senate Judiciary Committee public field hearing in Salt Lake City on Wednesday, April 14. The hearing, “Preventing and Responding to Acts of Terrorism: A Review of Current Law,” was welcomed by the ACLU of Utah because an open discussion and public examination of the USA PATRIOT (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act and other anti-terrorism measures adds additional voices to the growing call that both liberty and safety be protected. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R), chairman of the Committee, and one of the key sponsors of the bill, convened the hearing. The coalition, composed of groups that are often on the opposite sides ideologically came together to oppose portions of the USA PATRIOT Act. It included the League of Women Voters of Utah, the Eagle Forum, Utah Grassroots-Conservative Caucus, and the Libertarian Party of Utah. Many more groups requested to speak out against the PATRIOT Act, but were unable to do so given the volume of requests and limited time for the hearing. Absent from the panel was a representative of the Muslim community, whose members have felt the brunt of the racial profiling as a result of government excess since 9/11. "This public hearing was a step in the right direction,” commented Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. ”Many constituents have asked their members of Congress for a restoration of the civil liberties that have been unnecessarily lost. As the diverse panel of witnesses demonstrates, this issue is neither conservative nor liberal and that concerns for civil liberties are not limited to the halls of Congress, but exist on Main Street, USA.” While it was a step in the right direction, many of those offering testimony at the hearing, felt that instead of being an open and objective forum as promised, it instead provided Hatch a public venue to praise his own legislation. Hatch called the Act vital, and criticized civil libertarians with charges that opponents of the bills have not been able to offer any cases of law enforcement abusing the Act. Several community leaders responded that specific cases of the Act’s use or abuse could not be given, because implementation of the Act remains secret from public oversight. “It may be argued that, to date, the abuses that could have been have not been rampant,” said Scott Bradley of the Utah Eagle Forum during his testimony. “It is difficult to ascertain the validity of this argument since many of the areas which could be abused are kept secret by the provisions of the act. However, given the examples of history, perhaps they are simply not yet fulfilled.” Presenting the government’s side of the issue at the hearing were James Comey, Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice, and Paul Warner, U.S. Attorney, District of Utah. These two opening panelists received over half of the hearings’ allotted time to pay tribute to the act and rebut arguments against it. In her testimony before the Committee, Dani Eyer, Executive Director of the ACLU of Utah, focused on how the PATRIOT Act diminishes procedural checks and balances on executive powers, which are essential to preserving individual liberty. For instance, the Justice Department uses surveillance and investigative powers, granted or expanded in the PATRIOT Act, in cases unrelated to terrorism. “Utahns have a strong tradition of skepticism towards government power, particularly surveillance power unchecked by judicial or other authority. For that reason, Utah has joined the growing chorus of states rejecting the MATRIX database.” Eyer testified. “It is noteworthy our two leading newspapers, the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret Morning News, often ideologically opposed have both published several editorials expressing criticism of the USA PATRIOT Act.” (Indeed, on April 6th, the Salt Lake Tribune published a critical editorial on the conduct of the hearing and the Act itself.) Eyer also voiced the ACLU’s support for proposed new legislation known as the SAFE (Security and Freedom Enhanced) Act which would work to remedy some of the PATRIOT Act’s violations of civil liberties. The SAFE Act would restore key judicial safeguards, require individualized suspicion before an investigation could began, and expand the PATRIOT Act’s sunset clause to require Congressional review of certain surveillance provisions. Comey, in his testimony, cited that any warrants for “surveillance” had to come from well-regulated FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Courts and Warner stated that with all new legislation there is a certain risk, but this risk is minimized when put into the hands of professionals who can be trusted with these tools. Yet, civil libertarian fears were highlighted by an Associated Press article on April 16, 2004, that reported the number of secret surveillance warrants sought by the FBI has increased by 85 percent in the past three years - at a pace which has outstripped the Justice Department’s ability to process them. The warrants, authorized by FISA, allow for wiretaps, video surveillance, property searches and other spying on people believed to be terrorists or spies. After the 2001 PATRIOT Act and a key 2002 court decision crumbled the legal wall separating the FBI’s criminal and intelligence investigations, use of FISA warrants has soared. The FBI quickly adopted streamlined procedures to move the warrants quickly from the field office to headquarters and through the courts. Still a bottleneck has ensued, and Attorney General Ashcroft is currently issuing new guidelines to reduce and prevent backlog. “We all know that even if Congress passes the most restrictive laws imaginable, we will not prevent future acts of terrorism,” said Frank Mylar of Utah Grassroots, the Conservative Caucus. “But we will have changed forever who we are as a nation and a people beyond recognition. It is for this reason that we must proceed with caution and courage in fighting terrorism and avoid being led by our emotions and fears down a path of certain tyranny.” Responding to an extraordinary time and under pressure to give law enforcement and intelligence agencies new surveillance powers, Congress overwhelmingly passed the PATRIOT Act and President Bush signed the Act into law on October 26, 2001, forty-five days after September 11. Many members of congress now candidly acknowledge that they did not find it possible, under the circumstances, to closely scrutinize the bill, and no public hearings were held so that civil libertarians could address concerns about the bill. “Many records that were previously openly available have become closed under the guise of “national security” declared Aaron Turpen, secretary of Libertarian Party of Utah. “This circling of the wagons by agencies of the government appears to have done little to safeguard our nation and much to undermine trust in our nation’s government. Regardless of political ideology, religious belief, or lifestyle choice; people around the nation have come together to voice their opposition to the tyrannies they perceive coming from the PATRIOT Act.” Since its passage, there has been a groundswell of opposition to the most egregious provisions of the PATRIOT Act. To date, 282 communities, and four states -including Alaska, Hawaii, Vermont and Maine - have passed resolutions calling for changes to the PATRIOT Act, and that number is still growing. Nearly 49 million Americans now live in a jurisdiction that has such a resolution, communities that range in size and political ideologies. In Utah, the town of Castle Valley has joined the cities of New York and Los Angeles in having passed such a measure. Nanette Benowitz, President of the League of Women Voters of Utah stated, “The League supports the provision in the new legislation [SAFE Act] that would limit so-called “sneak and peek” searches, which now allow secret warrants with out notifying the subject of the search for an unspecified time. Under the SAFE Act, delayed notification would be allowed only when the government could show that secrecy was needed to prevent flight, destruction of evidence or danger to life or physical safety. This more meaningful judicial oversight would reassure citizens who value their Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.” 4/14/04: Federal Senate Judiciary Committee Comes to Town; ACLU Calls on Chairman Hatch to Keep America Safe and Free ACLU of Utah Testimony on “Preventing and Responding to Acts of Terrorism: A Review of Current Law” Before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary ACLU responds to Department of Justice letter re: SAFE Act Presented to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 4/14/04: ACLU of Utah Director Dani Eyer responds to follow up questions from Senator Orin Hatch on the Senate Committee on the Judiciary’s Salt Lake City Field Hearing, “Preventing and Responding to Acts of Terrorism: A Review of Current Law,” held on April 14, 2004. Click here to learn more about the PATRIOT Act

ACLU OF UTAH UNION OR FOUNDATION? | USER AGREEMENT | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US © 2008 ACLU OF UTAH · 355 NORTH 300 WEST · SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 · T (801) 521-9862 · F (801) 532-2850