Patrick Leahy: “I will respond only because my name was mentioned in this last debate and the implication was made as to what my…”

“I will respond only because my name was mentioned in this last debate and the implication was made as to what my position was. Let me state my position to be accurate on the Record. I read this to say: If the court finds that the State investigative or law enforcement officer--obviously two entirely different things--has certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained by such installation used is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation, they get the order. That is what the amendment says. You could have a State investigator, not even a sworn police officer, come in and say: Your Honor, I certify that this is relevant; give me the order. It seems to me as though the judge has much choice. We do it to fight terrorism on computers. How is a terrorist defined? We know what terrorism was at the trade towers. Is a terrorist somebody who comes in and says: I want to come in armed and make a statement, carrying a legally registered, licensed weapon and make a statement: I should have an easier time to carry my guns? Some people may feel terrorized. In my State, it would be routine. Is it terrorist activity if somebody blocks a contractor who wants to tear down trees to open up a development and have sent e-mails to their friends about this? Is that terrorist activity? It is easy to define terrorism.…”