Rand Paul Explains His Position On Patriot Act.

Rand Paul explains his http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifposition on Patriot Act
Written by Rand Paul

In the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Americans were justifiably angry, afraid and eager to catch and punish the terrorists who attacked us. I, like most Americans, demanded justice.

In this climate of urgency, the USA Patriot Act was hurriedly passed without careful committee analysis or debate. In fact, it was not possible for congressmen and senators to even read the bill before it passed.

One common misconception is that the Patriot Act applies only to foreigners. In fact, the Patriot Act was instituted precisely to widen the surveillance laws to include U.S. citizens. Two of the sections that were scheduled to expire recently apply to U.S. citizens: Section 215 — the so-called library provision — allows the government to view your reading records without probable cause of a crime contemplated or committed.

In addition, Section 206 — the “John Doe” roving wiretaps — applies to U.S. citizens. This provision defies the Fourth Amendment requirement to name the person and place to be searched. Proponents have argued that these names should be kept secret to protect ongoing intelligence investigations. I have no objection to a degree of secrecy. The courts established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA courts, comprised of federal judges who specialize in intelligence, review their cases in secret. I simply believe the government should provide the person's name and place to the FISA court.

I proposed three changes to the Patriot Act. First, I asked that gun records not be sifted through without probable cause or the procedural protections inherent in our criminal justice system. Millions of law-abiding U.S. citizens own guns and have given personal information to the government in the process of buying those guns. I do not want information about gun ownership to be open to searches unless those searches are bound by the chains of the strict standards required by our Constitution.

Second, I proposed to end the practice of requiring your bank to spy on you. Current law requires that banks file what are called Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) on transactions over $5,000 if they are “suspicious.” The problem is that it costs banks $7 billion per year, turns your bank into a government police agency, and threatens jail time, large fines and/or revocation of the charter to practice banking if they fail to comply. Consequently, banks err on the side of over-reporting rather than under-reporting.

How big is this problem? In the 1990s, SARs numbered in the thousands per year. Now, banks are turning in nearly a million customers per year. These are the personal, private financial records of American citizens.

Finally, I asked that judges review national security letters, or NSLs. These are letters that serve as warrants to search for records, but NSLs are written by FBI agents, not judges. While I personally know and respect many FBI agents, our founders did not want law enforcement agents to write search warrants without a judge's signature.

Most Americans would agree that requiring third-party judicial oversight is what protects all of us from living in a police state, where those doing the arresting are answerable only to themselves. I filibustered the Patriot Act to fight for the Second Amendment and the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. In all likelihood, my stance is not well understood nor a smart move if one's goal is simply to seek re-election, but I sincerely believe, as Benjamin Franklin wrote, that those who trade their liberty for security may wind up with neither.

Rand Paul, a Republican from Bowling Green, is Kentucky's junior U.S. senator.