Yes, it is sorta blogless Sunday. For me, that means nothing serious. However, I could not let an obvious misrepresentation, and, realistically, outright lie, that the New York Times editorial staff go. In an editorial regarding the Patriot Act, they have made several errors. I would like to think that they are errors of omission, but, I am not that gullible as the Grey Lady would like to think.
One of the provisions of the Patriot Act which has given the Left fits is the "sneak and peak" provision, or more properly termed "delayed notification." The Times writes:
Secret Searches Section 213, the "sneak and peek" provision, lets the government search a person’s home and delay telling him about it. These delayed-notification searches fly in the face of the strong American tradition that the government must announce when it is entering a home. Delayed-notification searches were of questionable legality before the Patriot Act, and Section 213 – which does not expire this year, but is still generating considerable debate – clearly goes too far. At the very least, it should apply only to terrorism cases, and not, as it now does, to all investigations. It should also have clear guidelines for how long notice can be delayed.
The article fails to mention that a warrant is required for a delayed notification search. It fails to mention the the burden to prove that one is needed is much stronger then with a standard warrant. It fails to mention that delayed notification has been around since the late 1970’s.
There was never a statute regarding delayed notification, but it was used starting in the late 1970’s, particularly against drug dealers, as the law permitted. In order for one to be granted, a federal judge must make an extra finding, which is in writing, putting his own ass on the line when issuing it. The subject of said warrant will be notified. The average delay time has been 7 days since the Act was passed in 2001. The point of delayed notification is that, if the subject is told at the time of the search, it could lead to injury or death, the subject may be a flight risk, the investigation could be harmed, and/or witnesses could be intimidated. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say that this is un-Constitutional. Don’t believe me? Check it out. Amendment IV.
The editorial also misrepresents what a delayed notification warrant may be used for. It does not apply to all investigations, as the Times specifies, but specific ones. It cannot be used on the average Joe Smith who did not pay his taxes. It is for use against possible crimes such as terrorism, child pornography, drug dealers, arms smugglers, etc. Is that bad? Not in my humble opinion.
Since it was passed in late 2001 it has been used less then .02% of all federal search warrants issued, a total of 108 times as of April 4, 2005.
See, it wasn’t all that hard to look the information up, was it Times editorial staff? Try it some time. I have said many times that the Left is not internet ready. The Times proves it.
You sure nailed that one! I does seem that a great majority of newspapers in this country operate almost entirely on heresay and fantasy! It’s like their reasoning is. “If I want it to be true, and write it down, then that makes it true.” Unfortunately most people believe whatever they read in the paper, and never look into the facts for themselves. Good Job!
The Times simply takes the ACLU/Lefty version and runs with it. Me, I talked with a US district attorney about it about 6 months ago.