The top ranking Republican of the House Judiciary Committee introduced legislation today that would compel the Justice Department to confer with the Director of National Intelligence and the secretary of Defense before deciding if a suspected terrorist should be tried treated as a civilian.

Lamar Smith (gov)

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) criticized the Obama administration’s decision to allow FBI agents to interrogate Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and read the Nigerian his Miranda rights when he was captured after he allegedly tried to ignite explosives in his underpants on a Dec. 25 Detroit-bound airplane flight.

“Giving terrorists constitutional rights ignores the seriousness of the threat from al-Qaeda — these are acts of war, not isolated incidents of crime,” Smith said in a statement. “All terrorists should be interrogated by intelligence experts to obtain crucial information about future attacks. Anything less risks the safety and security of the American people.”

DOJ spokesman Matthew Miller defended the decisions, saying in a statement last week that the DOJ consulted national security officials before Abdulmutallab was charged in federal court. But it is still unclear exactly when in the decision-making process the DOJ consulted the nationaly security officials on Abdulmutallab.

Yesterday, Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and the panel’s ranking Republican, Susan Collins of Maine, asked Attorney General Eric Holder to remove Abdulmutallab from federal custody to military detention.

Smith’s bill is co-sponsored by 17 Republicans: John Boehner, Ohio; John Carter, Texas; Buck McKeon, California; Peter King, New York; Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Florida; Jim Sensenbrenner, Wisconsin; Howard Coble, North Carolina; Elton Gallegly, California; Daniel Lungren, California; Trent Franks, Arizona; Louie Gohmert, Texas; Jim Jordan, Ohio; Jason Chaffetz, Utah; Tom Rooney, Florida; Roy Blunt ,Missouri; Hal Rogers, Kentucky; and Don Manzullo, Illinois.

House Republicans yesterday held a mock hearing on Capitol Hill to criticize Democrats for proposals to revise the Patriot Act.

Democrats say there are civil liberties concerns with the anti-terrorism law, originally passed in 2001 in the wake of the attacks on New York and Washington. They want to make it harder for the FBI to obtain information about what kind of books people check out of libraries, for example.

Republicans say the changes will weaken national security and have clamored for a full Judiciary Committee hearing about the proposed changes. But Democrats, who control Congress and the White House, haven’t obliged.

So Republicans were reduced to holding what was billed as a “forum” Tuesday, complete with witnesses and C-SPAN cameras. But there were no Democratic lawmakers present and few news media.

“It appears that no hearing will be held on this ill-advised piece of legislation and it will go straight to markup, an unwarranted departure from regular committee process,” House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said at the forum. “The committee should not take up such important legislation without first fully examining the bill and receiving input from the administration’s national security experts on all its provisions.”

Rachel Brand and Will Moschella (photo by Main Justice)

Two former Bush Department of Justice officials appeared as witnesses. Former Office of Legal Policy chief Rachel Brand and ex-Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs Will Moschella criticized the Patriot Act revisions.

At issue is The USA Patriot Amendment Act of 2009, introduced by House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) on Oct. 20. The bill would allow the controversial “lone wolf” provision to sunset at the end of the year and reauthorize the records and “roving wiretap” powers.

The committee held a mark-up of the bill Wednesday and will continue its work Thursday.

Here’s a summary of what the Conyers bill would do to the provisions:

- Lone wolf: The bill would not extend the government’s power to track a target who does not have any discernible affiliation to an international terrorist group or other foreign power. The provision has applied only to non-U.S. persons. It has never been used by the government.

-Records: The legislation would continue to allow the government to compel third parties — including financial, travel and telephone companies — to provide access to a suspect’s records. But the bill would place some new restrictions on this authority. Republicans have been especially critical of language in the bill that would make it much more difficult for the government to obtain periodical or book records from libraries or bookstores if the documents would identify patrons.

-Roving wiretaps: The bill would continue to allow the government to monitor phone lines or Internet accounts that a terrorism suspect may be using. But the legislation would add more controls. The bill would restrict the roving wiretap to a specific individual, foreign agent or foreign power. Civil liberties groups have expressed fears that the government can currently use the wiretap authority to unintentionally monitor unintended targets.

Brand and Mochella used words like “troubling” and “unwise” to describe the Conyers bill. Many of the twelve panel Republicans nodded  in agreement with the Bush officials during the forum.

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), who chaired the committee from 2001 to 2007, called the amendments “ultra-left wing” and a ”travesty.” Sensenbrenner introduced the Patriot Act in 2001.

The Justice Department has said it supports reauthorization of all expiring Patriot Act provisions, but it has declined to comment on any proposed changes. The legislation endorsed by the Senate Judiciary Committee extends the sun-setted provisions while putting tighter controls on the powers.

A spokesperson for Conyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

House Judiciary Committee ranking member Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and other House Republicans urged the Justice Department Inspector General today to investigate whether politics improperly played a role in the dismissal of voter-intimidation charges against members of the militant New Black Panthers.

The New Black Panthers evolved from the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, the 1960s-era black-power group founded in Oakland, Calif., by Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale. Its communist-influenced vision of civil rights as a military-style separatist movement hasn’t really been in vogue since the 1970s. It’s kind of laughable the GOP can’t find some better theme to ride.

The militant black power group dates to the 1960s.

We previously reported that the Justice Department disputed the accuracy of a Washington Times article that said Obama administration political appointees overruled career Civil Rights Division attorneys in dismissing the case. The DOJ said a career attorney had the final say in the lawsuit dismissal.

The Republicans wrote in a letter to Inspector General Glenn Fine that the DOJ has not not responded to previous letters from Smith and Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) questioning the dismissal. The Republicans wrote in the letter today that probing the dismissal should be a priority.

“As Inspector General of Justice Department, you spent more than a year investigating allegations of wrong political influence in the removal of several U.S. Attorneys,” they wrote. “Allegations of wrongful political influence by Obama administration officials in the dismissal of a voting rights case are equally important and should be subject to an equally thorough investigation.”

Those signing onto the letter include:

-Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas)
-Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.)
-Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.)
-Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa)
-Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)
-Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas)
-Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio)
-Rep.  John Culberson (R-Texas)
-Rep.  Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.)
-Rep.  Jo Bonner (R-Ala.)

The original DOJ complaint for the case said Malik Zulu Shabazz, Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson brandished weapons and used “coercion, threats and intimidation” to harass voters, both black and white, at a Philadelphia polling place last Nov. 4.  The defendants wore “military-style uniforms” including black berets and combat boots, the complaint said.

The Justice Department effectively won the case when the defendants failed to contest it, but opted to dismiss the case instead of getting a default judgment.