Burrus and Warner: Patriot Act shouldn't worry law-abiding citizens
By James H. Burrus Jr. and Paul M. Warner
In recent weeks, The Salt Lake Tribune has expressed reservations concerning the powers granted by the USA Patriot Act. Skepticism concerning expansions of government power is healthy, but the act is being misrepresented in some quarters.
The Patriot Act gives law enforcement tools to investigate and prevent acts of terror. Its biggest accomplishment is the removal of comical legal hurdles that prevented FBI agents from talking to each other or other police officers about terrorism investigations. For the first time, the Patriot Act lets us share details with police and intelligence agencies to prevent terrorist acts.
Law-abiding Utahns would be shocked to know that before the Patriot Act, investigative tools used in drug investigations to counter new technologies like e-mail and cell phones could not be used against terrorists. Law enforcement could use "roving wiretaps" to track drug dealers that changed telephones, but could not use this technique to track terrorists.
No more. The Patriot Act made common-sense changes by adapting existing authorities to new technologies.
The Patriot Act allows for access to business records, including library records, in terrorism investigations with court approval. The need for access to business records is easy to understand. In the case of the 9-11 hijackers, business records, including Internet access records, let the FBI track the travel and find associates of the hijackers. Critics would have the public look only at the availability of library records as clear reason to overturn the Patriot Act. The act makes law enforcement justify its need for these records to a court -- a fact left out of the current debate and one that provides ample protection against governmental highhandedness.
The Patriot Act allows law enforcement to delay notice of a search in very limited circumstances with court approval. Whenever the FBI conducts a search, we always notify the person whose property is searched. Sometimes, it may be necessary to delay this notice to protect life or avoid tipping off a terrorist suspect. Judges -- not FBI agents -- must review, approve, and oversee this delay.
The 9-11 hijackers showed frightening discipline and ingenuity in their operations. Imagine how hard it would be to stop similar groups if the FBI had to broadcast its investigation by leaving notes. Critics call this delayed notice a "sneak and peek" search -- a frightening label that implies shameful conduct. What is shameful is that this fully legal and legitimate process has been so harshly maligned.
Once informed, Utahns will not dismiss the value of the act's provisions in favor of exaggerating dangers that disappear on closer examination. That the Tribune has fallen into this approach is regrettable as it does a disservice to those of its readers who turn to it for carefully considered and mature judgments on the important issues of the day.
-----
James H. "Chip" Burrus Jr. is special agent in charge of the FBI in Salt Lake City. Paul M. Warner is the United States attorney for the District of Utah.
sltrib.com |
