Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich introduced a bill in the House yesterday to repeal portions of the Patriot Act. The sections that would be repealed are those that:

allow secret searches and wiretaps as well as detaining suspects indefinitely without meaningful judicial review, and that broaden the definition of what constitutes a terrorist group.

Kucinich's bill also would overturn laws that require airport screeners to be U.S. citizens, repeal Justice and Homeland Security department exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act and toss out a law that lets the FBI conduct undercover investigations of religious centers.

The ACLU and NAACP have given their support to the bill, as have 18 Democrats and 1 Republican in the House. Kucinich named the bill the "Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act." The Act begins with the quote,

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Here is the text of the new terror bill President Bush is promoting. It is H.R. 3037, introduced September 9 by Congressman Tom Feeney.

Several people have asked what's so bad about allowing the Government to bypass the courts and get administrative subpoenas. Here are the details of the provision, with analysis, by Kyle O'Dowd, Legislative Director for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL):

Overview:

• Allows DOJ to issue non-judicial subpoena to persons or entities requiring that they appear (most likely, in the U.S. Attorney’s office) to produce records and answer questions

• Applies to any investigation concerning a Federal crime of terrorism

• Area of questioning not limited to authenticity of any documents produced

• Requires attendance up to 500 miles away

• Allows AG to issue non-judicial gag order and punishes violations with incarceration

• In the event the subpoena is challenged in court, judicial review of the government’s submission is conducted in secret

Analysis:

California Governor Gray Davis has signed into law the bill passed by the state legislature granting drivers' licenses to undocumented residents. The bill allows state residents to apply for a driver's license using a state-issued identification number rather than a Social Security number. This will allow the thousands of undocumented California residents to obtain licenses. Gubernatorial candidate Cruz Bustamante supports the law. Arnold opposes it, as do the other major Republican contenders for Governor. It is estimated that there are up to 2 million undocumented persons in California.

To obtain a license, an applicant must show a federal taxpayer identification number (but not a Social Security number, which requires lawful residence and permission to work) and other documents, such as a foreign passport, foreign driver's license or an identification card issued by foreign consulates, such as the matricula identification cards issued by the Mexican government.

We wrote about this earlier today and it provoked a lot of comments, many asking what benefits the bill would provide.

The American Immigration Lawyers' Associaton (AILA) says:

• Licensing noncitizens enriches our domestic intelligence by allowing law enforcement authorities to verify and obtain the identities, residences, and addresses of millions of foreign nationals. Restrictive licensing will deprive authorities of this information.

• The proliferation of fraudulent documents that will result from restrictive licensing will impede law enforcement efforts by contaminating intelligence regarding who is present in the United States.

Congress is back in session, starting today.

One of the first items scheduled for a vote may be the Victim's Rights Amendment which we adamantly oppose--see here and here. The New York Times opposes it, as does the Washington Post. Republican, self-described "law-and-order-type" Law Professor Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy opposes it -- read his letter to Congress, co-signed by several other law professors, here. The bill has many detractors in Congress.

The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the Victims' Rights Amendment in April. It was approved 5-4 by the Constitution Subcommittee on June 12. The next step is a vote of the full Judiciary Committee, perhaps as soon as Thursday, September 4.

The proposed Amendment would hinder effective prosecution of crime in several ways, among them:

We received this email as to Ashcroft's Victory Act Tour:

Ashcroft's 10-day, 20-state tour to rally support for the PATRIOT Act and the draft VICTORY Act begins August 19 in Washington. Detroit, Philadelphia, Milwaukee and Salt Lake City have been mentioned as planned stops.

Here's some of what Ashcroft will be pushing for, reported by Congressional Quarterly (subscription only) on August 7:

Senate Republicans are drafting a bill aimed at cracking down on drug trafficking and money laundering that would give the Justice Department broad new investigative tools to use in the war on terrorism. The measure is being written by Judiciary Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, and several other Republicans on the committee. Hatch is expected to introduce the bill next month.

....A draft of the bill contains provisions that would allow law enforcement officers to seek roving warrants to monitor cellular telephone and other wireless communications. It also would allow the attorney general to issue administrative subpoenas in the course of terrorism investigations.

The bill also establishes a new category of crime--"narcoterrorism."

The draft bill would establish a new category of crime, "narco-terrorism," to punish those who manufacture or distribute controlled substances with the knowledge or intent that the activity would benefit a foreign terrorist organization.

How's this for fairness?

Under the draft bill, the government would not be required to prove that a defendant knew he or she was aiding such an organization.

The bill would count as illegal money laundering money transfers into or out of the United States that are made to evade income taxes. It also would boost civil and criminal penalties for financing "narco-terrorist" and other terrorist activities.

Is all this sounding familiar? It should. It's just a re-dressing and re-naming of Patriot Act II.

Jameel Jaffer, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, said the new draft bill "would provide the FBI and other government agencies with more power, but it would not make us more secure. "Some of [its] provisions were originally proposed in the draft Patriot Act II. Congress needs to be wary of attempts to enact Patriot II, or parts of it, in other guises."

Actually, Ashcroft's tactic of passing Patriot Act II piece meal began back in May-see here.

Joanne Mariner explains the new Prison Rape law, providing some excellent commentary along the way. As to the law,

Notwithstanding its ambitious title - an improvement over its previous, dismayingly modest title of Prison Rape Reduction Act - the new law will not put an end to rape in prison. The main focus of the legislation is on studying prison rape, collecting statistics relating to the problem, and developing national standards for the prevention and punishment of prison rape. Its enforcement mechanisms are relatively weak. (Indeed, the fact that the bill passed Congress unanimously should be proof enough that it lacks vigorous enforcement mechanisms, a failing that the text of the bill confirms.)

Looking on the bright side,

The new law does, however, signal a unprecedented official willingness to acknowledge the tragic consequences of prison rape. By creating a Justice Department review panel to address the problem, as well as a national commission to establish standards, the law will force corrections authorities to begin to take rape seriously as a problem. That alone will be a huge step forward.

Congress unanimously passed legislation targeting prison rape on Friday. The bill is the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003.

[The bill] establishes a system of grants and reforms that will cost $60 million a year. The centerpiece is an annual survey by the U.S. Department of Justice that will be the most sweeping study ever made of sexual assault in prisons, congressional sponsors and criminal justice experts said.

"It's been a long, strange battle, but I think everyone has come to understand that a prison sentence in the United States should not include rape as added punishment," said Rep. Frank R. Wolf, (R-Va.), a House co-sponsor of the bill, along with Rep. Robert C. "Bobby" Scott (D-Va.).

Attorney General John Ashcroft was in Alaska Monday, addressing the state's terrorism task force. He called the civil liberties invasion by the Patriot Act "non-existent.

"But when the so-called invasion is one that's falsely reported and nonexistent, and they don't hear about the fact that it's falsely reported and nonexistent, it's not helpful."

....Provisions that allowed law-enforcement agents to monitor a person's reading habits or purchases, for example, were similar to the traditional subpoena powers used in murder or drug-trafficking investigations, he said.

Instapundit reports that Sen. Joe Biden is backing off his own legislation, the ill-conceived Rave Act. Smart move, if he intends to run for President (or secure the VP spot.)

The House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, chaired by Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC) will be holding a hearing Thursday at 10:00 a.m. at 2141 Rayburn Building, on "Advancing Justice Through Forensic DNA Technology and Competent Counsel Standards in Capital Cases." From the Press Release:

DNA technology is increasingly vital to ensuring accuracy and fairness in the criminal justice system. DNA can be used to identify criminals with incredible accuracy when biological evidence exists, and DNA can be used to clear suspects and exonerate persons mistakenly accused or convicted of crimes. Members of Congress have introduced legislation to ensure that wrongfully-convicted people have an opportunity to establish their innocence through DNA testing. This legislation also establishes standards to ensure competent legal counsel in capital cases. In March, the Bush administration unveiled a $1.16 billion initiative to reduce the DNA case backlog over the next five years.

Background:

• In many instances, public crime labs are overwhelmed by backlogs of unanalyzed DNA samples.

• In numerous recent cases, post-conviction DNA testing that has exonerated an innocent person has also helped identify the actual criminal.

• More research is needed to develop faster methods for analyzing DNA evidence.

• Professionals working in the criminal justice system need additional training and assistance in order to ensure the optimal use of DNA evidence to solve crimes and assist victims.

• The criminal justice system needs the resources to provide DNA testing in appropriate circumstances for individuals who assert that they have been wrongly accused.

We hope this means the Innocence Protection Act is closer to passing Congress.

Sen. Joe Biden's 'Rave Act' (renamed the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003) is still drawing well-deserved criticism. Biden slipped the Act into the Amber Alert bill that became law on April 30, 2003. Critics charge that the law

... could not only throw innocent promoters in jail, but also scare off property owners from renting out halls, clubs and fields for any event - from concerts to political rallies - where someone might use an illegal drug. That, they say, could violate Americans' rights to free speech and free assembly.

"The law is so wide open that it could shut down anything, like a Rolling Stones concert, a hip-hop show, any kind of show," says Alex Virasayachack, a Cleveland promoter and disc jockey. "It's a pretty Draconian thing," says Marvin Johnson, a counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "Owners and promoters can go to jail for something that they have no control over."

As evidence of their charge, critics point to the DEA's actions in Montana last month which resulted in NORML cancelling a benefit.

The Drug Enforcement Administration has acknowledged that an Eagles Lodge in Billings canceled a May 30 concert scheduled on its property after a DEA agent showed up that day with a copy of the new law and suggested the lodge could be held liable if concertgoers used drugs. The concert was a money-raiser for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. Ed Childress, a DEA spokesman in Washington, said the incident appears to have resulted from a misinterpretation of the law by the local DEA agent.

The DEA says it has drawn up guidelines for the enforcement of the Act.

Prosecutions will be aimed, he said, at people holding events "for the intended purpose of promoting" drug use or sales. The agency also has directed agents to coordinate any enforcement of the law with headquarters, he said.

....The real targets of the law, he said, are people who promote electronic-music dance parties known as "raves" in a way that makes clear that drugs like Ecstasy will be available.

The assurances of the DEA that concert promoters and business owners won't be charged just because patrons illegally use drugs at a concert is somewhat reassuring. But, these are guidelines only, which means they could be revised. Guidelines are not law. The law still needs to be amended to make this point clear. [link via What Really Happened]

The ACLU released a new report on the Patriot Act today. From its press release:

The American Civil Liberties Union today said that it has found a consistent pattern of factually inaccurate assertions by the Department of Justice in statements to the media and Congress, statements that mischaracterize the scope, potential impact and likely harm of the now-notorious USA PATRIOT Act.

The ACLU’s findings were released this morning in a special report that contrasts the Justice Department’s assertions about the USA PATRIOT Act with the language of the Act itself, and in some cases contrasts the Justice Department’s public statements with language from internal Justice Department memoranda that the ACLU was able to obtain through a Freedom of Information Act request. The report – “Seeking Truth From Justice” – cites about a dozen specific instances in which Justice Department and other law enforcement officials misrepresented the scope or impact of the USA PATRIOT Act.

To illustrate its point, the ACLU lists a number of specific representations made by the Justice Department, which it labels false or misleading, including: