The Fugitive Apprehension Act would authorize government officials, under the guise of pursuit of someone who has not been apprehended for a felony offense, to seize any document they want without first getting a search warrant or a subpoena from a court. This includes private documents such as medical records, bank records, credit card records, telephone records, Internet, and school records.

Under this law, government agents would be able to write their own search warrants, called "administrative subpoenas," and could then seize documents from a person's custody. If an individual refuses to surrender the documents, government officials could then enter the person's home or business to confiscate them.

The act, which was passed in the U.S. Senate July 26, also authorizes the federal government to allocate $40 million over three years for the U.S. Marshals Service to form Fugitive Apprehension Task Forces. If signed into law, this bill would add more cops to the Marshals Service, and give them administrative subpoena authority in "fugitive investigations."

"In the past it often took too long to get vital information and records through a formal court order that would make a significant difference in the apprehension of a fugitive," claimed Sen. Strom Thurmond, the bill's sponsor, in a statement. "This legislation is about helping authorities get documentary information about the whereabouts of the most dangerous, violent fugitives who are roaming the streets of America," he declared, in an effort to justify this assault on democratic rights.

This "bill is about constitutional destruction," wrote Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute. "Should [it] become law, it would set a precedent for warrantless, secret searches on other areas." Kopel's article appeared on the web site of the conservative magazine National Review.  
 
Clinton vetoes secrecy bill
In a related development, President Clinton vetoed antileak legislation November 4 that makes it a felony to disclose information about U.S. government "secrets" to "unauthorized" persons. In sending the bill back to Congress, Clinton did not reject the premise, but the scope, of the legislation. "I agree that unauthorized disclosures can be extraordinarily harmful to the United States national security interests," he said in a statement November 4, "and that far too many disclosures occur." He encouraged legislators to draft a "more narrowly drawn provision," stressing that the measure "lacked the thoroughness this provision warranted." Clinton said that what is in dispute "is not the gravity of the problem, but the best way to respond to it."

The bill, rammed through Congress without public hearings or a recorded vote, has stirred up a lot of debate among U.S. ruling class figures who opposed the measure while accepting its premise that the government has the prerogative to spy on groups and individuals and hide its actions under the guise of "legitimate secrets."

"The new law written by Congress goes far beyond any reasonable effort to protect legitimate secrets," said an editorial in the New York Times. While the motivation for the legislation "was understandable," the paper opined, "the measure is blind to distinctions between genuinely important secrets and those that serve to shield misconduct."

Other newspapers across the country editorialized against the bill, including the St. Petersburg Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle. Chief executives of CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Newspaper Association of America issued a joint statement appealing to Clinton to veto the bill.

New York Times conservative columnist William Safire called the bill a "weapon that so many dictatorships use to stifle dissent and hide misdeeds." He likened the legislation to the British Official Secrets Act that authorizes government officials in London to determine what news can be published or broadcast.

"This is an Official Secrets Act," said Sen. Daniel Moynihan, who opposed the provision while supporting measures contained in the overall Intelligence Authorization Act of 2001.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home