Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Sunday
Interview With Kendall Coffey
Aired September 07, 2003 - 11:09 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Attorney General John Ashcroft has been campaigning from coast to coast for renewing and strengthening the Patriot Act. The law was approved by Congress after the 9/11 attacks and the Patriot Act is highly controversial. And joining us this morning to talk a little more about it is former U.S. Attorney Kendall Coffey.
Kendall, thanks so much for being here. Some people saying, of course, that this is controversial, but other people saying, hey, how far are people in this country willing to go for safety and security?
KENDALL COFFEY, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: While the Patriot Act, Heidi, has been sort of a lightning rod for this debate over the balance between liberty and security, the reality is many of the most controversial measures that have provoked so much criticism since 9/11, the so-called secret detentions of hundreds of people, military tribunals, the holding of U.S. citizens as so-called enemy combatants, without trial, without charges, without a right to defend themselves, those issues have nothing to do with the Patriot Act itself. When you look within the four corners of the Patriot Act, it's a lot less revolutionary than many have implied and, in fact, probably does more to modernize than revolutionize the surveillance powers of the federal government.
COLLINS: Well, then, let's take a minute to break it down. Help us to understand what the Patriot Act and Patriot Act 2 specifically is about.
COFFEY: Two different things. Let's start with Patriot Act 1.
In the main, Patriot Act 1 has a succession of provisions which clarify, and to some extent update, a lot of important elements in surveillance. Example, you could very easily get a monitoring of phone calls, finding out what numbers somebody is calling, what numbers somebody is receiving calls from, not the contents, just the numbers, caller I.D., under existing law. That has now been extended to e-mail.
Other examples are, you can now get a wiretap not just for one phone, one judicial district, but for whatever phones a particular targeted suspect is using anywhere in the country. That is the substance of most of the Patriot Act, and a lot of it just builds on provisions and things that have been around a long time.
COLLINS: So basically, expansion of these surveillance powers. What is it that opponents take issue with? COFFEY: Well, they come from different sources, and there are certainly legitimate questions. For example, booksellers and library associations believe that it's gotten much too easy to find out what book somebody is reading. You can go to the library now as a law enforcement officer, very easily get information about books and things like that and not even have to report it.
Another big issue is whether there has, in fact, been an increase, an easier ability to get so-called national security wiretaps under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It used to be that you would have to show that the foreign intelligence or foreign terrorist analysis is the primary purpose. Now you just have to show that that's a significant purpose. Is that a huge issue in the scheme of things? Hard to say. Only time will tell.
COLLINS: Are there any specifics, though, in the Patriot Act that actually violate the constitution?
COFFEY: So far no court has so held. There's certainly going to be some assessment of some of the language in this law, whether it's too general, just as there was in the 1996. But a lot of what's driving Congressional concern, and we know that a few months ago by an overwhelming margin in the house they voted not to fund one portion of the Patriot Act, is the question not so much of what the law says, but how is it being applied? Because even if the law itself seems to be a relatively clear extension or modernization of a lot of existing procedures, certainly it could be abused and that's why one of the issues that's under way right now is the demands of Congress to get enough oversight to make sure that they know whether the Patriot Act is being used constitutionally or whether there is overreaching.
COLLINS: All right. Former U.S. Attorney Kendall Coffey. We appreciate you breaking that down for us very much.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired September 7, 2003 - 11:09 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Attorney General John Ashcroft has been campaigning from coast to coast for renewing and strengthening the Patriot Act. The law was approved by Congress after the 9/11 attacks and the Patriot Act is highly controversial. And joining us this morning to talk a little more about it is former U.S. Attorney Kendall Coffey.
Kendall, thanks so much for being here. Some people saying, of course, that this is controversial, but other people saying, hey, how far are people in this country willing to go for safety and security?
KENDALL COFFEY, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: While the Patriot Act, Heidi, has been sort of a lightning rod for this debate over the balance between liberty and security, the reality is many of the most controversial measures that have provoked so much criticism since 9/11, the so-called secret detentions of hundreds of people, military tribunals, the holding of U.S. citizens as so-called enemy combatants, without trial, without charges, without a right to defend themselves, those issues have nothing to do with the Patriot Act itself. When you look within the four corners of the Patriot Act, it's a lot less revolutionary than many have implied and, in fact, probably does more to modernize than revolutionize the surveillance powers of the federal government.
COLLINS: Well, then, let's take a minute to break it down. Help us to understand what the Patriot Act and Patriot Act 2 specifically is about.
COFFEY: Two different things. Let's start with Patriot Act 1.
In the main, Patriot Act 1 has a succession of provisions which clarify, and to some extent update, a lot of important elements in surveillance. Example, you could very easily get a monitoring of phone calls, finding out what numbers somebody is calling, what numbers somebody is receiving calls from, not the contents, just the numbers, caller I.D., under existing law. That has now been extended to e-mail.
Other examples are, you can now get a wiretap not just for one phone, one judicial district, but for whatever phones a particular targeted suspect is using anywhere in the country. That is the substance of most of the Patriot Act, and a lot of it just builds on provisions and things that have been around a long time.
COLLINS: So basically, expansion of these surveillance powers. What is it that opponents take issue with? COFFEY: Well, they come from different sources, and there are certainly legitimate questions. For example, booksellers and library associations believe that it's gotten much too easy to find out what book somebody is reading. You can go to the library now as a law enforcement officer, very easily get information about books and things like that and not even have to report it.
Another big issue is whether there has, in fact, been an increase, an easier ability to get so-called national security wiretaps under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It used to be that you would have to show that the foreign intelligence or foreign terrorist analysis is the primary purpose. Now you just have to show that that's a significant purpose. Is that a huge issue in the scheme of things? Hard to say. Only time will tell.
COLLINS: Are there any specifics, though, in the Patriot Act that actually violate the constitution?
COFFEY: So far no court has so held. There's certainly going to be some assessment of some of the language in this law, whether it's too general, just as there was in the 1996. But a lot of what's driving Congressional concern, and we know that a few months ago by an overwhelming margin in the house they voted not to fund one portion of the Patriot Act, is the question not so much of what the law says, but how is it being applied? Because even if the law itself seems to be a relatively clear extension or modernization of a lot of existing procedures, certainly it could be abused and that's why one of the issues that's under way right now is the demands of Congress to get enough oversight to make sure that they know whether the Patriot Act is being used constitutionally or whether there is overreaching.
COLLINS: All right. Former U.S. Attorney Kendall Coffey. We appreciate you breaking that down for us very much.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
