|
My Representative in the House is a Republican. This Rep. often sends questionnaires where you can only check-box one of the answers already on the pre-printed card (no space for any variations from the listed choices). Anyway, I got this letter today (it's dated a few days ago - in January). Also, it starts by thanking me for contacting their office about the Patriot Act (which I didn't), so tell me wise DU'ers what do you make of this:
<snip>
...I supported H.R. 3199...
This bill included a provision that would reauthorize Section 215 of the original Patriot Act, which will expire on December 31, 2005, unless Congress reauthorizes the Patriot Act. Unfortunately, much misinformation exists about this section of the law. For instance, it contains no provisions specifically directed at libraries, bookstores, or their patrons. As a matter of fact, the law specifies that no intelligence agency can investigate an American based solely on the exercise of his or her First Amendment rights. Furthermore, the Act's authority can only be used to "obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person."
Before the Patriot Act was enacted, federal authorities who were engaged in gather foreign intelligence information or conducting an investigation of international terrorism could seek a court order under the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act (FISA) for access to hotel, airline, storage locker, or car rental business records. The businesses to which the orders were addressed were bound to silence.
Section 215 of the Patriot Act amended the procedure to allow federal authorities involved in such an investigation to obtain a FISA order for access to any tangible item no matter who holds it, which could include library and bookstore records. And in all cases, a court order or warrant is needed before property is seized.
Keep in mind too that the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution ensures that the Patriot Act balances the needs of law enforcement and the intelligence community while protecting the privacy of individual Americans. Our Fourth Amendment rights, which protect not only tangible property but intangibles such as conversation, are not pre-empted by the Patriot Act.
<end snip>
(bolding is mine; italics is the Reps
---------------------
I dunno, I'm not too good at deconstruction, but it sounds like my Representative is saying "don't worry about the Patriot Act, it doesn't affect YOU. It seems to me like the Rep. might be in error here by OMISSION of some of the salient points, but I'm don't have all of the facts at my fingertips here (the Patriot Act is a huge document if I remember correctly).
Any thoughts/suggestions? Should I write my Rep. back or ????
|