Statement of Congressman Sanders regarding: Civil Liberties

Statement of Congressman Sanders regarding: Civil Liberties
02/01/05

I would like to thank you all for coming here tonight to discuss the state of civil liberties in the United States today. In particular, let me thank the President of Vermont Law School, Geoffrey Shields and his assistant Spencer Hanes for helping to organize this event. And let me also thank our distinguished panel: Professor Cheryl Hanna of Vermont Law School; Professor Stephen Dycus of Vermont Law School; Trina Magi, Past President of the Vermont Library Association; and Ben Scotch, the Former Executive Director of the Vermont American Civil Liberties Union. Each of these panelists will make a short opening statement, after which the floor will be open for your questions and comments.

In the United States today there is a great concern about terrorism. Our country suffered a horrendous tragedy on September 11th, 2001 - and there is no doubt in my mind that there are people on this earth who would like to attack us again.

Is terrorism a serious problem? The answer is "Yes, it is." Should the United States and the rest of the world do all that we can to protect innocent people from terrorist attacks? The answer, once again in my view, is "Yes, we should."
But the question that we are struggling with in Congress and throughout our country is: "Do we have to sacrifice our basic liberties and constitutional rights in order to protect ourselves from the threat of global terrorism?" And in my view, the answer to that question must be a resounding "NO." With proper intelligence work and effective law enforcement, we can fight terrorism, protect the American people, and maintain the freedoms which make us a great nation - and that is what we must do. I'm very happy to say that this viewpoint is held not just by progressives and liberals, it is held by conservatives as well. Some of my major allies on this issue in Congress hold political views very different from mine, but we are in absolute agreement that basic constitutional rights in this country are under assault - and that we've got to fight back to maintain the freedoms which make us a great nation.

As you all know Congress, at the request of President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft, passed the hastily drafted so-called USA Patriot Act some 6 weeks after 9/11. I voted against that bill, and was the first member of Congress to introduce legislation to amend it. My legislation, "The Freedom to Read Act" amends Section 215, a provision which allows government agents to monitor the reading habits of Americans without probable cause. With the support of librarians and bookstore owners, and a very strong national grass-roots campaign, we attracted very strong bi-partisan co-sponsorship in the last Congress. More importantly, when that bill was brought to the floor as an amendment, it won by 10 votes at the end of regulation voting time. It took House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and the Republican leadership an additional 20 minutes beyond the normal voting time limits to finally twist enough Republican arms to defeat that amendment 210-210.

A year before that, an amendment brought to the House floor by a conservative Republican from Idaho, Butch Otter, which would have denied funding for the fiscal year 2004 for the implementation of Section 213 of the USA Patriot Act, the so-called "sneak and peak" provision, won by an overwhelming vote. Not too surprisingly, the Republican Leadership did not include that vote in the Conference committee or the final legislation.

I'm sure we've heard all heard the argument; "These new laws are meant for terrorists, not me, so why should I care about them? I'm not a terrorist!" From the controversial and unconstitutional portions of the Patriot Act, to "no-fly" lists, to the arrest of journalists who do not reveal their sources, to pre-emptive questioning of anti-war demonstrators, to the way prisoners of war in Guantanamo are treated, this Administration has repeatedly demonstrated a total disdain for civil liberties.

One major problem that we should address tonight, and it is a major problem, is that the Patriot Act provisions automatically make every citizen a suspect. We are blurring the line between presumed innocence and presumed guilt, and the burden of proof is shifting from the government to the average American citizen. No longer is it a matter of innocent until proven guilty: everyone is a potential terrorist, and both probable cause and proof are not longer necessary.

But we must not limit our discussion solely to the outrageous provisions of the Patriot Act. We need to be aware that a cancer is threatening out civil liberties, our constitutional rights, and our privacy rights. They are being attacked NOT ONLY by the Patriot Act, but by advances in technology and a growing government-and corporate - movement toward constant surveillance.

Modern technology gives the private sector the ability to know a great deal about each of us. Every time you use a credit card, every web page you visit on the internet, every bill you pay or do not pay, every medical procedure you have done or doctor's visit you make, is recorded electronically. Cities have surveillance cameras which track the people who walk on the streets. Cars can automatically register how far you drive and how fast you go. And all of this is before chip-embedded passports, which go into effect this year. Or smart drivers' licenses. I am sorry to tell you that there is already an effort in Congress to include standardized computer chips in every driver's license, chips that could be read remotely. What that would mean is that someone with the right kind of device could track your every movement. The government, yes. But also businesses, which would be able to identify you the second you walked into a store and even tell where you went within the store.

Add to this the increased use of surveillance - both by the government, which wants to keep track of every citizen and what he or she does, and of businesses, which want to keep track of every consumer and what he or she does or buys or is ill with - and you can see the dangers ahead. In a few short years, every single thing we do, every place we go, every person we meet, could be recorded as part of a database.

This is not just futuristic. It is here now. A program called MATRIX already combines information about individuals from both government databases and private-sector data files. Although the participating private companies and government agencies have refused access to program details, according to news reports and documents obtained by the ACLU, the kind of information to be searched includes credit histories, driver's license photographs, marriage and divorce records, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and the names and addresses of family members, neighbors and business associates. The good news is that the backlash against this program has been fierce, with only five of the original sixteen states still participating.

Let's be clear: these are civil liberties and privacy, there are dangerous times. Much work is needed to undo the unlawful assaults on civil liberties that have occurred over the past four years, and to prevent other erosions of our rights from occurring. If we do not stand up and fight for our privacy rights today, where will we be when newer and even more advanced technology and surveillance methods kick into gear? For this is about far more than our freedom to read, important as that is, without the government looking over our shoulder. We are entering a time when, unless we fight back, not just the government but the major corporations will know more about us than our spouses, our children, our friends.

Let me conclude by quoting someone I have very little in common with politically - the very conservative former Republican House Majority Leader, Dick Armey of Texas. He said: "Are we going to save ourselves from international terrorism in order to deny the fundamental liberties we protect to ourselves?" This is what we must ask ourselves: do we want to willfully hand over our precious civil liberties in an effort to save them? If not, where do we go from here?

http://bernie.house.gov/statements/20050201112729.asp