August 1, 1996
Coalition Protests Dangerous Anti-Terrorism Proposals:
Calls for Preservation of Citizens' Fourth Amendment and Privacy Rights
'Who Will Guard the Guards?'
Washington, D.C., August 1, 1996 -- A broad coalition of organizations today called on
Congress to reject renewed "counter-terrorism" proposals which would take away Americans' rights
while giving dangerous new powers to federal law enforcement agencies.
The letter was drafted and signed by Gerald H. Goldstein and William B. Moffitt, the
Immediate Past President and Treasurer of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
(NACDL), Tanya K. Metaksa, Executive Director, National Rifle Association; Laura W. Murphy,
Director of the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union; Marc Rotenberg, Director
of the Electronic Privacy Information Center; James J. Fotis, Executive Director of the Law
Enforcement Alliance of America; Alan M. Gottlieb and John M. Snyder, Chairman and Public
Affairs Director, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; among others.
The White House/Congress "Terrorism Task Force" is considering a number of alarming and
sweeping new powers for federal agents, who repeatedly show flagrant disregard for the rights of
American citizens as amply documented in Congressional reports on the Waco and Ruby Ridge
operations. Among the "anti-terrorism" -- in reality, "anti-American" -- proposals requested by the
White House, and which the coalition protests include:
Expansion of multi-point ("roving") wiretap powers, in which federal agents may tap any telephone a surveillance subject might use, even telephones of friends, family, business associates and business establishments not suspected of any crime.
Authorization for federal agents to tap telephones for up to 48 hours without a court order.
Authorization for federal agents to routinely collect business records such as telephone records, hotel registrations, car rentals, and more, on individuals without a subpoena from a grand jury, nor even a reasonable indication of criminal behavior.
Government eavesdropping had become so much of a problem by the 1960s that Congress
specifically outlined when, where, and how federal agents must conduct wiretap activity, in Title III
of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (18 U.S.C. 2510-2522). Other kinds of
electronic surveillance, such as interception of faxes and electronic mail, were addressed by
Congress in the Electronic Communication Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. 2510-2522, as amended in 1986).
The legislation being contemplated would undo these statutory protections which carefully balance
the government's need to know with the individual's right to privacy, through the checks and
balances of neutral judicial oversight.
"Wiretapping proposals in the contemplated anti-terrorism legislation signal a disturbing
retreat from this protection, especially in light of the fact that too many innocent conversations are
already picked up in law enforcement wiretaps," the coalition said in its letter.
The coalition strongly urges Congress to reject these provisions. "These provisions would
work an unwarranted expansion of federal law enforcement powers at the expense of civil liberties,"
the coalition's signers warned. That is why, in response to the clear will of the people, these same
proposals were rejected by Congress just last April.
Neither of the two recent incidents which prompted the resurrection of these proposals has
been shown to be an act of terrorism. Nor can it be shown that any of these measures would have
prevented either of these events if they were.
If Congress surrenders Americans' fundamental liberties to federal law enforcement
agencies which have demonstrated excessive and abusive disregard for the Bill of Rights time and
time again, we wonder, as Juvenal did two thousand years ago, Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? --
"Who will guard the guards?"
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL)