GRAND RAPIDS -- Margaret Chiara, US Attorney for the Western District of Michigan, and Assistant US Attorney Lloyd Meyer were joined by two professors at what was billed as a "forum open to the public" on the USA PATRIOT Act at Grand Valley State University. The forum was part of a series of presentations by US Attorneys designed to deflect growing criticism of the USA PATRIOT Act. This increased criticism includes the passage of resolutions designed to protect civil liberties from the USA PATRIOT Act in 3 states and 165 towns, cities, and counties, as well as proposals in the US House of Representatives to eliminate "unnecessary" provisions in the Act.
The Speakers
The forum began with a PowerPoint presentation outlining the USA PATRIOT Act by Marget Chiara, the US Attorney for the Western District of Michigan, who stated that she was there in an "educational role" to inform citizens. She began her presentation by citing the fact that the USA PATRIOT Act was overwhelmingly approved by the Congress on October 25, 2001. To her, this functioned as sufficient proof of the fact that it the USA PATRIOT Act was indeed the subject of debate, but neglected to mention anything about the limited nature of the debate over the PATRIOT Act and did not cite its 342-page length. In her concluding remarks, Ms. Chiara did mention the complexity of the PATRIOT Act, stating that "understanding the it requires knowledge of federal criminal statues and procedure (Title18), national defense statues (Title 50), and legal precedent," but did not make any mention of the difficulties inherent in voting in haste on such a complex piece of legislation.
From the outset, Chiara said she would be discussing the "most controversial" sections of the USA PATRIOT Act, covering the areas of "Domestic Security," "Border Control," "Enhanced Surveillance," and "Criminal Law." Naturally, her presentation reflected the positions outlined on the Justice Department's lifeandliberty.gov website, and consequently, there is little need to go into them in great depth within this article, as they are readily available online. The majority of the presentation covered surveillance laws, including a discussion of Section 215 which deals with obtaining business records, for example library records, where she took the opportunity to cite Attorney General Ashcroft's recent statement that this provision has never been used. Notably absent from her discussion on "Border Control" and immigration was information on Arab people detained in the months after September 11, 2001.
As might be expected, Ms. Chiara used hypothetical situations that raised the prospect of terrorism in Michigan as examples of why the government needs the PATRIOT Act. When discussing information sharing between government agencies, she mentioned that before the USA PATRIOT Act if a grand jury learned that terrorists were planning to detonate a bomb in Lansing's capitol building, that information could not be shared with the NSA. Similarly, Assistant US Attorney Lloyd Meyer discussed a "hypothetical" situation wherein the CIA/FBI might obtain information on a person at Michigan State University who had attended an Al-Qaida training camp and was enrolled in classes, but instead of going to classes, spent most of his time in the library where they were reading "suspicious" books on how to manufacture biological agents while being a member of a "sleeper cell." These statements seemed consistent with "scare tactics" that are frequently employed by the government to gain support for their positions during the "war on terror." These tactics have been seen with Representative Vern Ehlers statements about the potential for mushroom clouds over Grand Rapids, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's concerns about "fighting terrorists on our streets" if we had not invaded Iraq, and Attorney General Ashcroft's frequent mention of "sleeper cells" operating in the United States.
Assistant US Attorney Lloyd Meyer was easily the most dynamic speaker, and for an unknown reason, was the only one given a wireless microphone while speaking. When explaining why he believed the PATRIOT Act to be necessary, he focused almost exclusively on how PATRIOT Act provisions would have been helpful in "domestic terrorism" cases. He explained that the power to subpoena library records helped solve the Unabomber case and that it would consequently be useful for investigating "terrorists." Meyer cited the fact that the grand jury investigating the Unabomber subpoenaed library records to see who had been reading the four "esoteric" books cited in the "Unabomber's Manifesto (as a note, some of these "esoteric" books included Chinese Political Thought in the 20th Century by Chester C. Tan and Violence in America: Historical and Comparative Perspectives edited by Hugh Davis Graham and Ted Robert Gurr)." He also explained how the Act would have been helpful in an investigation into the "North American Militia," a group previously based in Michigan. While Meyer said that he had little concern about people hating the government, he was worried about those would act on their feelings.
In addition to the two US Attorneys, two Grand Valley State University faculty members also spoke. Dr. Mark Richards of the Political Science Department addressed Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, arguing that it should be repealed. He directly challenged the Ms. Chiara's assertions on 215, mentioning that the standard for obtaining records is far less than "probable cause" or "evidence of involvement," but rather the FBI need only say the records are needed for a foreign intelligence investigation. Mr. Richards also mentioned that people served with 215 warrants are unable to publicly disclose the fact that they have been served with a warrant. Jeff Scruffel of the Criminal Justice Department also spoke, voicing concerns over the lack of oversight and review in the USA PATRIOT Act, suggesting that current review procedures may not be sufficient.
Question and Answer Period
The questions addressed to the panel ranged from skeptical to hostile towards the government's position that the USA PATRIOT Act is necessary. Among the issues addressed raised by audience questions were First Amendment protections in Section 213, the necessity of a gag order in 213, the detainment of Arab people, and questions about past abuses of power by law enforcement agencies. US Attorney Meyer acknowledged that the government made errors in the past with the Palmer Raids, the interment of Japanese-Americans, and COINTELPRO, but asserted that this time "we [the government] got it right," a reply that drew laughter from the audience. Meyer expressed great faith in Attorney General Ashcroft, and said that he had no reason not to believe Ashcroft's recent assertion that Section 215 had never been used, despite a question from an audience member that cited testimony by US Attorney General Viet Dinh to the House Judiciary Committee stating that libraries had been "contacted approximately 50 times" in the last year using the USA PATRIOT Act. Meyers was similarly dismissive of concerns about the number of Arab people detained after September 11, stating that of the 750 detained, 550 had been deported for being here illegally--demonstrating that they were criminals. He stated that the Inspector General had acknowledged that there were mistakes made, citing the fact that some people were detained for 70 days when they could only be detained legally for 7 days, but that he had no way to know who, if anyone, was holding people accountable for violating the law while detaining individuals.
Outside the Forum
While inside the forum there was an important discussion on the potential ramifications of the USA PATRIOT Act and the possibility for the criminalization of dissent, a significant portion of the discussion remained abstract, as much of what is actually happening with the USA PATRIOT Act is not adequately disclosed. Prior to the event, a small group of people handed out leaflets questioning the USA PATRIOT Act and informing people of the number of cities that have passed resolutions against the act, in addition to inviting people to the next organizing meeting for a resolution against the PATRIOT Act in Grand Rapids. It did not take long for GVSU Public Safety officers to come outside and tell the people leafleting that they would have to move from the front of the building hosting the forum to the sidewalk or the Grand Rapids Police Department would be called and told to arrest them for trespassing on what is "private property." When questioned, the officers said that this also applied to GVSU students and that students would face the same risk of arrest, yet they were evasive when asked to explain how students could be prohibited from being on university property. When the facilitator of the forum, James Bolger, director of the School of Criminal Justice, was asked about threats to arrest people at a public forum, as well as students, he touted his accommodation of the situation as he made the call not to "escalate" the situation by calling the police even though people were breaking the law. Nevertheless, he was unwilling to guarantee that there would be protection for free speech activities by GVSU students at forums organized by him in the future, as he claimed to have no control over the way security officers acted. Of course, this assertion was puzzling given the fact that he claimed to have made the decision not to call the GRPD.
