|
We
Disagree, Mildly
Albany
Law School debate on the Patriot Act gets down to details—and
makes nice
Since
it was proposed a week after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and
passed a little over a month later, the Uniting and Strengthening
America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept
and Obstruct Terrorism Act (Patriot Act) has been an incredibly
divisive symbol in the ongoing battle between national security
and civil rights.
Towns, cities and states across the nation, including several
in the Capital Region, have passed resolutions against the
Patriot Act in the past few years, and while the resolutions
may not carry any legal weight, they are certainly casting
a very negative light on the bill that was supposed to help
protect us from future terrorist attacks. And now, with some
of the most controversial statutes in the act set to expire
at the year’s end, tensions between the act’s supporters and
detractors continue to escalate. A debate on the subject at
Albany Law School last week, however, was far more cordial
than the national rhetoric might have suggested.
Because of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the passing
of the act, there has been opposition since its inception.
There is no way the massive legal document could have been
drafted in the 10 days between the terrorist attack and its
proposal, and so it has been labeled a sort of “wish list”
that those supporting increased intelligence and law-enforcement
powers had long wanted but never been able to pass until the
heightened anxiety of the post-9/11 world. A great deal has
also been made of its vague language and overall complexity—mostly
because it describes changes and updates to previously existing
legislation without providing any context for what the original
legislation deals with.
Last Thursday (April 4) in front of a small audience of law
students and community members, Udi Ofer, project director
for the American Civil Liberties’ New York Bill of Rights
Defense Campaign, argued against the Patriot Act, while Margaret
Stock, an associate professor at the U.S. Military Academy
at West Point, supported it. Ofer was “an obvious choice”
to speak, according to the Albany Law chapter of the ACLU,
as he has been involved in both national debate and litigation
against the Patriot Act. Stock, whose focus is on National
Security Law, was described by the Albany Law Federalist Society
as an “expert on the Patriot Act.”
Ofer and Stock both sought to immediately extinguish the idea
that the Patriot Act was a controversial document from top
to bottom. They focused most of the debate on only two of
the Patriot Act’s 158 parts: section 213, the “sneak and peak”
law that gives intelligence agencies unprecedented surveillance
powers and does not sunset; and section 215, the “library
provision,” which gives intelligence agencies access—without
a search warrant or even probable cause—to “any tangible things”
they need to further an investigation, from library records
to DNA samples, and will sunset this year if not renewed.
The debate moved forward with a glaring absence of bared teeth,
trying to make up what it lacked in intensity with substance.
Ofer demonstrated just how ambiguous the language was in many
of the sections, pointing out that peaceful demonstrations
could be construed as terrorist activity with justification
from the Patriot Act. And Stock highlighted many of the national-security
protections that purportedly have resulted from provisions
in the act. However, the cordial tenor of the argument was
hardly representative of the divide the Patriot Act has created
on a national level.
Ofer and Stock spent a large portion of the time agreeing
that the Patriot Act is not as bad as public opinion has made
it out to be. “It is not the goal of the ACLU to have the
Patriot Act repealed,” Ofer stated. Instead, they are focusing
on changing the few portions of it they feel are unconstitutional.
Stock herself admitted that “there are a few spots in the
document that could be tightened up . . . that are probably
due to congressional oversights.”
Both claimed to respect and want to preserve civil liberties,
but there was a clear gap in what they meant by that: While
Ofer and the ACLU believe in placing the civil rights of all
citizens at the forefront, Stock (representing a common military
attitude) suggested that violating the rights of the few to
protect the many is a necessary byproduct of national security
in the new millennium.
And despite opening the debate with the promise to avoid the
sloganeering that has plagued the larger issue—such as domain
names like www.lifeandliberty.gov and www.safeandfree.org—both
parties resorted to rhetorical devices in their closing remarks.
While Stock claimed “the Patriot Act would have prevented
9/11 from ever happening” and ominously cautioned that “while
provisions expire, murderous Jihad does not,” Ofer argued
that “9/11 happened not because of bad law, but because of
bad lawyers. . . . And future generations of law students
will look back on this as a dark period in the constitutional
history of the United States.”
The debate left unresolved the key issue posed by professor
Stephen E. Gottlieb in his remarks to open the debate: How
do we “help intelligence agencies do their jobs without giving
them carte blanche to do whatever they want”?
—Nolan
Konkoski
 |
| What
a Week |
|
Hear
That, Mr. Turner?
With all of the media attention given to Pope
John Paul II recently, one of the late pope’s
last messages seems to have been overlooked by
mainstream media’s flood of eulogies. A statement
made by the pope earlier this year urged “those
responsible for communications” to foster a “culture
of co-responsibility” and “make possible a true
participation in their management by all.” Only
by providing a forum for different opinions, reasoned
the pope, can mass media “promote justice and
solidarity.”
Not Unless the Law Says So
“They
need to make a law about that?” Dept.: Sen. Diane
Feinstein (D-Calif.) has introduced a bill that
would require companies that have sensitive information
in their databases to notify customers if their
info has been illegally accessed thanks to a security
breach, so they can protect themselves from identity
theft. Currently, only California requires such
notice.
It’s a Love-Hate Relationship
John Bolton, the president’s nominee for U.S.
ambassador to the United Nations, who once said
“it wouldn’t make a bit of difference” if 10 floors
of the U.N. secretariat building in New York were
destroyed, faced harsh criticism from Democrats
and Republicans during his confirmation hearing
this week. Bolton’s intolerance toward opposing
viewpoints—he acknowledged complaining to the
superior of an intelligence analyst who disagreed
with his positions—drew significant attention
from committee members. Nevertheless, like many
recent, controversial nominees, none of the committee’s
Republicans is expected to vote against Bolton’s
nomination.
The Twisted Webs We Weave
Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who hopes to become
New York’s next governor, recently endorsed incumbent
Albany Mayor Jerry Jennings’ bid for reelection.
Jennings’ favored candidate for governor remains
unknown, however. The last time the office was
contested, Jennings—a Democrat, according to voter
records—surprised many party loyalists by giving
his support to incumbent Republican Gov. George
Pataki.
|
|
|
 |
|
Once
a haven: Tyler Arms veterans’ residence.
photo:John Whipple
|
Movin’
On
Few
people are happy that Tyler Arms is closing, least of all
the tenants who have to move, but they’re avoiding the blame
game
Housing
for poor veterans “usually gets shoved in some horrible downtown
area,” observed Sandy LeVan of United Tenants of Albany. So
it’s no wonder that the veterans who live at Tyler Arms, at
688 Madison Ave. in Albany, are attached to the complex of
three large mansions across the street from Washington Park
and just a few blocks away from the VA Hospital.
But it
appears that the Albany Housing Coalition, which owns the
properties, took a gamble in 1998 when it opened the house:
Apparently, to placate worried neighbors and the city, it
agreed to a zoning restriction that requires the residence
to take only disabled veterans over 45. Many veterans in need
of housing also are dealing with mental illness and substance-abuse
issues, and so need more intensive services than Tyler Arms,
said Joe Sluszka, AHC’s executive director. Those veterans
are served by AHC’s transitional facilities, and usually want
their own apartment, rather than a single room at Tyler Arms,
when they are ready to leave. Put this together, and despite
the growing number of veterans in need of support, you have
a prescription for empty rooms.
Tyler
Arms, which has 60 rooms, was never full to capacity. Recently,
it has hovered around two dozen residents, meaning that the
AHC is losing $7,000 to $8,000 per month on the properties,
according to Sluszka. The properties were bought with a regular
bank loan, rather than grants or government funds. In 2003,
the coalition got into zoning trouble with the city for temporarily
allowing a nonprofit substance-abuse rehab center to use some
of its extra space [“Down But Not Out,” Newsfront, Oct. 16,
2003].
But at
the same time, the coalition already had put the properties
on the market. There has been a contract for sale since February
2004, dependent on a zoning decision that was possibly expected
last night (April 13). The potential purchaser, a Staten Island-based
company, wants to turn the buildings into graduate-student
housing.
While
the zoning appeals process has been in the works, AHC has
been working diligently with the Tyler Arms residents to find
them new homes, said Sluszka, who took over AHC last spring,
after the contract for sale was in place. Of course, as they
move tenants out, the financial burden of the house only increases.
“All
of us, board and staff, are very disheartened that we are
put in this position where we have to close the building,”
said Sluszka. “But sometimes one must make hard choices.”
Though
they had been told last summer that the building would be
sold, the delay had lulled some tenants into thinking it might
not happen. Receiving their official 30-day notice to vacate
in early April was a wake-up call. One resident, Gregory Brown,
wrote a plea for help that was signed by 20 residents and
that he delivered to local elected officials on April 8. Brown
wrote of the difficulty disabled veterans on public assistance
have in saving up down payments, or affording a residence
where meals are not included in the rent. Many of them get
the minimum $321 per month in housing allowance from public
assistance. Only New York state Sen. Neil Breslin’s office
responded, said Brown.
Brown
also spoke of the benefits of living with other veterans who
understand your experience. He said he was hoping federal
officials might put their money where their mouth was in terms
of supporting veterans and come up with a way to keep the
house open for all veterans with no age restriction. “They
always come to the parades and wave their flags . . .” said
LeVan.
Sluszka
sighs when asked about the possibilities of finding grant
money to keep the residence open. “I’ve been trying to do
that for the entire year I’ve been here,” he said. “It’s not
realistic.” What’s more, he’s concerned that some residents
are holding on to hope of a miracle rescue, which is keeping
them from making use of the coalition’s offer to help them
find other housing.
Brown
also reached out to the United Tenants of Albany for help.
This week, after meeting with Roger Markovics of United Tenants
and with Sluszka, Brown said he understands the financial
situation, though he still thinks the house’s closing will
be a great loss. “It’s too little too late,” he said. “Nobody
has any hopes of saving it.” He wishes he’d been invited to
testify at the March Zoning Board of Appeals hearing where
the buyer’s revised application for a variance was presented.
(The first attempt was denied last July.)
“It’s
not our intention to block a sale,” said LeVan of United Tenants.
“The AHC has done great things for veterans. They have struggled,
and been down every path. . . . It’s just . . . if we’d known
about this ahead of time, housing groups across the city would
have climbed on board and lobbied and supported. . . . These
guys are going to get pushed into a market that’s already
full. It creates a strain on the city.”
“When
tenants face a problem, we try to be as realistic as possible,
but we tell them that if they don’t stand up and make their
needs known, they will be disregarded,” added Markovics. Still,
“I trust Joe to do the right thing for these guys. I don’t
want [the coalition] to be painted as the enemies.”
Nonetheless,
added Markovics, “to me, everything is negotiable.” He’s suggesting
to the tenants that they try to meet with the new owners to
see if they would accept a mix of students and veterans of
all ages, which would reduce the parking and traffic concerns
that neighbors have raised about the student proposal.
Y and
S Homes, the potential purchasers, could not be reached by
press time.
The coalition,
meanwhile, is hoping to turn its attention and energy to its
successful projects, including a new transitional facility
opening on Walter Street in North Albany in the former Sacred
Heart convent, which has its own funding, and some ideas about
providing housing for women veterans with children. It’s even
possible it could try for another permanent housing residence
at some point, said Sluszka, though if so, it would be significantly
smaller than Tyler Arms.
—Miriam
Axel-Lute
maxel-lute@metroland.net
|
| Overheard |
|
Overheard:
“There’s
a lot more to this than money. If it’s money I
wanted I could take a bottle of valium and sell
pills on the street corner. That’s not what I
got a license for.”
—local
pharmacist on the phone with a customer who was
apparently trying to offer “something extra” to
get a prescription filled without his doctor’s
approval.
|
|
|
| Loose
Ends |
|
More
than 90 percent of the 1,806 people arrested during
last summer’s Republican National Convention
[“The Price of Dissent,” Newsfront, Sept. 9, 2004]
have seen the charges against them dropped or
verdicts of not guilty returned by juries, thanks
to overwhelming amounts of video evidence that
contradict police officers’ claims, reported The
New York Times on Tuesday (April 12). In one
set of incidents, charges were dropped after an
officer who testified against multiple individuals
was nowhere to be seen in videotapes of their
arrests, while in another incident, evidence submitted
by a volunteer film archivist proved that a video
used by the prosecution had been doctored. A police
spokesman said officers’ inconsistent recollection
of events should not be grounds for criticism
(to which a letter-writer responded that they
shouldn’t be testifying under oath if they don’t
remember the events), and Mayor Michael Bloomberg
has declined to comment on the growing demand
for an investigation. . . . A bill that would
make capital punishment legal again in
New York received a death sentence of its own
Tuesday (April 12), as the Assembly’s Codes Committee
voted to kill the legislation in committee rather
than let it go to a vote on the floor. The bill
would have altered the capital punishment statute
to make deadlocked juries default to a sentence
of life without parole instead of forcing juries
to decide between the death sentence and a sentence
that would allow for future parole—a condition
that the Court of Appeals ruled unconstitutional
in June 2004 [“A Capital Debate,” Newsfront, Jan.
27]. Republican committee members appeared to
contradict their national party’s “culture of
life” rhetoric, arguing that the death penalty
is a protective measure for police and other law
enforcement personnel, but their counterparts
in the majority party cited the high number of
death-row inmates discovered to be innocent before—and
after—execution in voting down the legislation.
. . . Gov. George Pataki signed off on a $106.6
billion state budget Tuesday night (April
12), tying up many of the loose ends that the
Legislature—despite claims to have broken the
20-year streak of late budgets—had left dangling
[“Finished, in an Unfinished Sort of Way,” Newsfront,
April 7]. The governor used his veto power sparingly,
negating two programs related to capital punishment
and one that would give the Legislature control
over the funds from the systems benefits fee charged
on electricity bills. The governor also gave his
approval to the Legislature’s preliminary agreements
on voter identification standards and the voter
complaint process, providing just enough official
compromise to free up federal funding under the
Help America Vote Act.
|
|
|
|
Columns
& Opinions
