Howard Coble, Chairman
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security
207 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Coble:
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security at its April 19, 2005 oversight hearing on sections 203(b) and (d) of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. I enjoyed our discussion and look forward to working with you as the Committee continues its work on the Patriot Act.
Enclosed please find a corrected copy of the verbatim transcript.
I also wanted to take this opportunity update my statement with some additional background information that has been brought to my attention on the Northern Virginia raids of the Graduate School of Islamic Social Sciences (GSISS) and the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT). This additional information strengthens the argument for providing additional notice and oversight regarding the use of information acquired in criminal probes for intelligence reasons.
First, as Barry Sabin of the Justice Department pointed out at the hearing, two defendants in the civil rights lawsuit described in my testimony, David Kane, the FBI agent who signed the search warrant affidavit, and Rita Katz, a government consultant, were successful in having that lawsuit dismissed by the trial judge on the ground that probable cause existed to support the underlying search warrants, and the court awarded attorneys fees to Rita Katz. The attorneys for the plaintiffs in that case inform me that they plan to appeal this ruling. The lawsuit remains pending as to the unknown agents whom the plaintiffs say executed the warrant in an unconstitutional manner.
If the search is eventually upheld, I believe that this strengthens the need for additional checks and balances for the use, for intelligence purposes, of information obtained in criminal investigations. The court noted in its ruling that criminal probable cause for a search warrant requires far less than probable cause for an arrest. Judicial approval of broad search powers in criminal investigations will, without proper oversight, provide a powerful incentive to government officials to use those investigations for the purpose of gathering information on Americans, including information clearly protected by the First Amendment.
Second, while the attorneys for GSISS, IIIT and Mar-Jac Poultry were informed by government agents in 2004 that their clients are no longer under investigation for terrorism financing, an assistant United States attorney, Gordon Kronberg, has contradicted these statements, saying in open court in April 2004 that the investigation is ongoing and that indictments could follow, possibly within six to twelve months. There still have been no charges filed against these institutions, nor have their assets been frozen.
Finally, the attorney for Rita Katz informs me that she disputes the statements, reported in The Forward on June 13, 2003 that she ""had exaggerated her role in the Virginia investigation, drawn some reckless conclusions and lost the trust of some investigators from the FBI and Justice Department."" The Forward based this reporting on two sources ""privy to the investigations"" who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity.
However the case involving GSISS, IIIT and Mar-Jac Poultry is eventually resolved, there can be no doubt that federal criminal investigations since September 11 have been extremely wide ranging, and that many prominent Muslim American leaders and organizations have faced intense scrutiny from the federal government. There is no question that these investigations, including the raids in Northern Virginia, have involved seizing confidential materials entitled to the highest First Amendment protection and have affected many ordinary people who have not been found to have done anything wrong. The potential for chilling of First Amendment speech and activity is very real.
I look forward to working with you on our proposals to reform parts of the Patriot Act to ensure that federal investigators can share valuable intelligence information, but that proper safeguards are included to ensure criminal investigative powers are not used as a pretext for prying into First Amendment activities.
Sincerely,
Timothy H. Edgar
National Security Policy Counsel