FBI Admits Patriot Act Hasn’t Helped

The FBI admits that they have not stopped any terrorist attack or caught any terrorists using the Patriot Act.

While Jeb Bush is campaigning on how Rand Paul is wrong and the Patriot Act is great, the FBI admits that it hasn’t had anything to do with keeping us safe as far as they are concerned. This is (somewhat surprisingly) reported in the Washington Times: “FBI admits no major cases cracked with Patriot Act snooping powers.”

FBI agents can’t point to any major terrorism cases they’ve cracked thanks to the key snooping powers in the Patriot Act, the Justice Department’s inspector general said in a report Thursday that could complicate efforts to keep key parts of the law operating.

Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz said that between 2004 and 2009, the FBI tripled its use of bulk collection under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows government agents to compel businesses to turn over records and documents, and increasingly scooped up records of Americans who had no ties to official terrorism investigations.

The FBI did finally come up with procedures to try to minimize the information it was gathering on nontargets, but it took far too long, Mr. Horowitz said in the 77-page report, which comes just as Congress is trying to decide whether to extend, rewrite or entirely nix Section 215.

Backers say the Patriot Act powers are critical and must be kept intact, particularly with the spread of the threat from terrorists. But opponents have doubted the efficacy of Section 215, particularly when it’s used to justify bulk data collection such as in the case of the National Security Agency’s phone metadata program, revealed in leaks from former government contractor Edward Snowden.

The new report adds ammunition to those opponents, with the inspector general concluding that no major cases have been broken by use of the Patriot Act’s records-snooping provisions.

I think the article is being overly optimistic about the rationality of politics to state that this information will affect the debate in Congress. People who are loyal to the surveillance state are dedicated to the need for the government to spy on the people. If they aren’t deterred by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, they are not going to be swayed by mere testimony from the FBI.