Nbadan
12-17-2005, 06:26 AM
Point:
Patriot Raid
By Jason Halperin, AlterNet. Posted April 29, 2003.
A month ago I experienced a very small taste of what hundreds of South Asian immigrants and U.S. citizens of South Asian descent have gone through since 9/11, and what thousands of others have come to fear. I was held, against my will and without warrant or cause, under the USA PATRIOT Act. While I understand the need for some measure of security and precaution in times such as these, the manner in which this detention and interrogation took place raises serious questions about police tactics and the safeguarding of civil liberties in times of war.
That night, March 20th, my roommate Asher and I were on our way to see the Broadway show "Rent." We had an hour to spare before curtain time so we stopped into an Indian restaurant just off of Times Square in the heart of midtown. I have omitted the name of the restaurant so as not to subject the owners to any further harassment or humiliation.
We helped ourselves to the buffet and then sat down to begin eating our dinner. I was just about to tell Asher how I'd eaten there before and how delicious the vegetable curry was, but I never got a chance. All of a sudden, there was a terrible commotion and five NYPD in bulletproof vests stormed down the stairs. They had their guns drawn and were pointing them indiscriminately at the restaurant staff and at us.
"Go to the back, go to the back of the restaurant," they yelled.
I hesitated, lost in my own panic.
"Did you not hear me, go to the back and sit down," they demanded.
I complied and looked around at the other patrons. There were eight men including the waiter, all of South Asian descent and ranging in age from late-teens to senior citizen. One of the policemen pointed his gun point-blank in the face of the waiter and shouted: "Is there anyone else in the restaurant?" The waiter, terrified, gestured to the kitchen.
The police placed their fingers on the triggers of their guns and kicked open the kitchen doors. Shouts emanated from the kitchen and a few seconds later five Hispanic men were made to crawl out on their hands and knees, guns pointed at them.
After patting us all down, the five officers seated us at two tables. As they continued to kick open doors to closets and bathrooms with their fingers glued to their triggers, no less than ten officers in suits emerged from the stairwell. Most of them sat in the back of the restaurant typing on their laptop computers. Two of them walked over to our table and identified themselves as officers of the INS and Homeland Security Department.
I explained that we were just eating dinner and asked why we were being held. We were told by the INS agent that we would be released once they had confirmation that we had no outstanding warrants and our immigration status was OK'd.
In pre-9/11 America, the legality of this would have been questionable. After all, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."
"You have no right to hold us," Asher insisted.
"Yes, we have every right," responded one of the agents. "You are being held under the Patriot Act following suspicion under an internal Homeland Security investigation."
The USA PATRIOT Act was passed into law on October 26, 2001 in order to facilitate the post 9/11 crackdown on terrorism (the name is actually an acronym: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.") Like most Americans, I did not recognize the extent to which this bill foregoes our civil liberties. Among the unprecedented rights it grants to the federal government are the right to wiretap without warrant, and the right to detain without warrant. As I quickly discovered, the right to an attorney has been seemingly fudged as well.
When I asked to speak to a lawyer, the INS official informed me that I do have the right to a lawyer but I would have to be brought down to the station and await security clearance before being granted one. When I asked how long that would take, he replied with a coy smile: "Maybe a day, maybe a week, maybe a month."
We insisted that we had every right to leave and were going to do so. One of the policemen walked over with his hand on his gun and taunted: "Go ahead and leave, just go ahead."
We remained seated. Our IDs were taken, and brought to the officers with laptops. I was questioned over the fact that my license was out of state, and asked if I had "something to hide." The police continued to hassle the kitchen workers, demanding licenses and dates of birth. One of the kitchen workers was shaking hysterically and kept providing the day's date, March 20, 2003, over and over.
As I continued to press for legal counsel, a female officer who had been busy typing on her laptop in the front of the restaurant, walked over and put her finger in my face. "We are at war, we are at war and this is for your safety," she exclaimed. As she walked away from the table, she continued to repeat it to herself: "We are at war, we are at war. How can they not understand this?"
I most certainly understand that we are at war. I also understand that the freedoms afforded to all of us in the Constitution were meant specifically for times like these. Our freedoms were carved out during times of strife by people who were facing brutal injustices, and were intended specifically so that this nation would behave differently in such times. If our freedoms crumble exactly when they are needed most, then they were really never freedoms at all.
After an hour and a half the INS agent walked back over and handed Asher and me our licenses. A policeman took us by the arm and escorted us out of the building. Before stepping out to the street, the INS agent apologized. He explained, in a low voice, that they did not think the two of us were in the restaurant. Several of the other patrons, though of South Asian descent, were in fact U.S. citizens. There were four taxi drivers, two students, one newspaper salesman -- unwitting customers, just like Asher and me. I doubt, though, they received any apologies from the INS or the Department of Homeland Security.
Nor have the over 600 people of South Asian descent currently being held without charge by the Federal government. Apparently, this type of treatment is acceptable. One of the taxi drivers, a U.S. citizen, spoke to me during the interrogation. "Please stop talking to them," he urged. "I have been through this before. Please do whatever they say. Please for our sake."
Three days later I phoned the restaurant to discover what happened. The owner was nervous and embarrassed and obviously did not want to talk about it. But I managed to ascertain that the whole thing had been one giant mistake. A mistake. Loaded guns pointed in faces, people made to crawl on their hands and knees, police officers clearly exacerbating a tense situation by kicking in doors, taunting, keeping their fingers on the trigger even after the situation was under control. A mistake. And, according to the ACLU a perfectly legal one, thanks to the PATRIOT Act.
The PATRIOT Act is just the first phase of the erosion of the Fourth Amendment. From the Justice Department has emerged a draft of the Domestic Securities Enhancement Act, also known as PATRIOT II. Among other things, this act would allow the Justice Department to detain anyone, anytime, secretly and indefinitely. It would also make it a crime to reveal the identity or even existence of such a detainee.
Every American citizen, whether they support the current war or not, should be alarmed by the speed and facility with which these changes to our fundamental rights are taking place. And all of those who thought that these laws would never affect them, who thought that the PATRIOT Act only applied to the guilty, should heed this story as a wake-up call. Please learn from my experience. We are all vulnerable so speak out and organize, our Fourth Amendment rights depend upon it.
AlertNet (http://www.alternet.org/story/15770/)
Counter-Point:
The Patriot Act under Fire
By John Yoo, Eric Posner
Posted: Tuesday, December 23, 2003
ON THE ISSUES
AEI Online (Washington)
Publication Date: December 1, 2003
Criticisms of the Patriot Act as unconstitutional and as a danger to individual rights are unfounded. Any marginal reduction in peacetime liberties entailed by the act seems to be a reasonable price to pay for an important weapon in fighting al Qaeda and other terrorists.
The Patriot Act has become a magnet for claims that the government is violating our individual rights. In early December, the federal commission investigating the September 11 attacks heard testimony from several prominent law professors on the dangers of the act. Last month, Al Gore called for the act's repeal, accused the Bush administration of suspending civil liberties, and claimed that the government was using "fear as a political tool to consolidate its power and to escape any accountability for its use." Democratic front-runner Howard Dean has called the act "morally wrong," "shameful," and "unconstitutional." Many cities have refused to assist the federal government in its implementation.
Putting aside the hysterics, the worst thing about the Patriot Act is its Orwellian name. It creates no revolution in government powers, nor does it violate the Constitution. If the act marginally reduces peacetime liberties, this is a reasonable price to pay for a valuable weapon against al Qaeda, a resourceful and adaptable enemy that is skilled at escaping detection.
The Patriot Act's most controversial provisions concern electronic surveillance of individuals who threaten national security. But the act did not initiate this practice. The system of secret search and wiretap warrants, granted in a secret hearing by a group of federal judges, without notice to the target, was established twenty-five years ago by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA was passed because before 1978, authorities could conduct searches to stop threats to national security without any judicial warrants at all. No court has ever found FISA to be unconstitutional, and just last year a special panel of federal appeals court judges reviewed the Patriot Act's central modification of FISA and unanimously found it constitutional.
Before the Patriot Act, FISA warrants were issued upon a showing that the "primary purpose" of the surveillance was to gather foreign intelligence information. Both the Department of Justice and the special FISA court that issued the warrants interpreted this language, for reasons known only to themselves, to mean that any such information gathered by counterintelligence services could not be shared, except under rare circumstances, with law enforcement officials. This "wall" prevented law enforcement officials and counterintelligence officials from pooling their information--a dangerous and stupid practice given that al Qaeda has demonstrated that terrorists can easily operate outside and inside the United States.
The Patriot Act changed the warrant standard from "primary purpose" to "significant purpose" in order to eliminate the wall of separation between foreign threats and domestic crimes, and to allow law enforcement to be used as a weapon against terrorism. Civil libertarians would have us believe that the Patriot Act allows CIA and NSA agents to roam freely through the country detaining anyone they please. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Patriot Act represents a modest retrenchment from an overcautious interpretation of FISA, but nothing like the pre-1978 regime of warrantless searches.
The Patriot Act also expands FISA to include business and other records that are relevant to a terrorism investigation. The claim that this provision is unconstitutional is false. Individuals generally do not have a Fourth Amendment right over records about them held by someone else. Given that al Qaeda terrorists have used libraries to conduct research and to communicate, and that their activities can be traced through credit-card receipts and travel reservations, this expansion of FISA is eminently reasonable.
Balancing Liberty and Security
Much of the rest of the Patriot Act contains similar common-sense adjustments that modernize existing laws like FISA. FISA warrants, for example, are now technology-neutral--for example, they allow continuing surveillance of a terrorist target even if he switches communication devices and methods. Warrants now authorize nationwide surveillance, rather than surveillance only within a single city or district. Patriot Act changes allow the search and surveillance tools that had been used against drug dealers and the Mafia to be used against terrorists.
These changes are modest and are worth the small, perhaps even imaginary, reduction in civil liberties. Even well-known liberal Democrats have dismissed the idea that constitutional freedoms are in danger. Sen. Dianne Feinstein stated: "I have never had a single abuse of the Patriot Act reported to me. My staff e-mailed the ACLU and asked them for instances of actual abuse. They e-mailed back and said they had none." Sen. Joe Biden said at a recent hearing that "the tide of criticism" being directed against the act "is both misinformed and overblown."
But some think that even a small restriction of civil liberties can never be justified. These people think that, as a mark of our commitment to freedom, courts should not allow the government to invade our civil liberties even during emergencies. The truth is the opposite. Civil liberties throughout our history have always expanded in peacetime and contracted during emergencies. During the Civil War, the two world wars, and the Cold War, Congress and the president restricted civil liberties, and courts deferred; during peacetime, civil liberties expanded.
The image of a government rationally balancing liberty and security might seem falsely reassuring. What if Mr. Gore is right that the government is using public fear as a tool for consolidating its power? Historical precedents--Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, the Roosevelt administration's internment of Japanese-Americans--do not bode well. Shouldn't the courts protect us against such abuses?
Whenever a war or emergency occurs, critics often argue that the government's reaction is motivated by fear. History surely does suggest that the government is frequently ill-prepared for emergencies, and that fear provoked by a new threat can spark official action. But this is not a bad thing. Although not all fear-driven policies are good--again, we must remember the Japanese-Americans' internment--fear provoked by emergency also can motivate government to react to new threats in creative ways. Common-sense changes in surveillance law could have been used against al Qaeda before they murdered three thousand people. Errors may occur, but they happen during peacetime as well as during emergencies.
What of the charge that the administration is using public fear to consolidate political power? History shows that new security policies usually last only as long as the war or emergency. The president and Congress usually voluntarily give up their emergency powers; when they do not, courts step in. Despite a succession of wars and emergencies since the Civil War, civil liberties in our country have expanded steadily.
President Roosevelt said at the beginning of the Great Depression that the only thing we need to fear is fear itself. But he later realized that the absence of fear could be just as dangerous, because it prevented the United States from preparing for the coming war. It took Pearl Harbor to shatter the complacency of the American public. We can only hope the absence of an al Qaeda attack on American soil during the last two years will not lull us back into our pre-September 11 stupor.
American Enterprise Institute (http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.19661,filter./pub_detail.asp)
Patriot Raid
By Jason Halperin, AlterNet. Posted April 29, 2003.
A month ago I experienced a very small taste of what hundreds of South Asian immigrants and U.S. citizens of South Asian descent have gone through since 9/11, and what thousands of others have come to fear. I was held, against my will and without warrant or cause, under the USA PATRIOT Act. While I understand the need for some measure of security and precaution in times such as these, the manner in which this detention and interrogation took place raises serious questions about police tactics and the safeguarding of civil liberties in times of war.
That night, March 20th, my roommate Asher and I were on our way to see the Broadway show "Rent." We had an hour to spare before curtain time so we stopped into an Indian restaurant just off of Times Square in the heart of midtown. I have omitted the name of the restaurant so as not to subject the owners to any further harassment or humiliation.
We helped ourselves to the buffet and then sat down to begin eating our dinner. I was just about to tell Asher how I'd eaten there before and how delicious the vegetable curry was, but I never got a chance. All of a sudden, there was a terrible commotion and five NYPD in bulletproof vests stormed down the stairs. They had their guns drawn and were pointing them indiscriminately at the restaurant staff and at us.
"Go to the back, go to the back of the restaurant," they yelled.
I hesitated, lost in my own panic.
"Did you not hear me, go to the back and sit down," they demanded.
I complied and looked around at the other patrons. There were eight men including the waiter, all of South Asian descent and ranging in age from late-teens to senior citizen. One of the policemen pointed his gun point-blank in the face of the waiter and shouted: "Is there anyone else in the restaurant?" The waiter, terrified, gestured to the kitchen.
The police placed their fingers on the triggers of their guns and kicked open the kitchen doors. Shouts emanated from the kitchen and a few seconds later five Hispanic men were made to crawl out on their hands and knees, guns pointed at them.
After patting us all down, the five officers seated us at two tables. As they continued to kick open doors to closets and bathrooms with their fingers glued to their triggers, no less than ten officers in suits emerged from the stairwell. Most of them sat in the back of the restaurant typing on their laptop computers. Two of them walked over to our table and identified themselves as officers of the INS and Homeland Security Department.
I explained that we were just eating dinner and asked why we were being held. We were told by the INS agent that we would be released once they had confirmation that we had no outstanding warrants and our immigration status was OK'd.
In pre-9/11 America, the legality of this would have been questionable. After all, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."
"You have no right to hold us," Asher insisted.
"Yes, we have every right," responded one of the agents. "You are being held under the Patriot Act following suspicion under an internal Homeland Security investigation."
The USA PATRIOT Act was passed into law on October 26, 2001 in order to facilitate the post 9/11 crackdown on terrorism (the name is actually an acronym: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.") Like most Americans, I did not recognize the extent to which this bill foregoes our civil liberties. Among the unprecedented rights it grants to the federal government are the right to wiretap without warrant, and the right to detain without warrant. As I quickly discovered, the right to an attorney has been seemingly fudged as well.
When I asked to speak to a lawyer, the INS official informed me that I do have the right to a lawyer but I would have to be brought down to the station and await security clearance before being granted one. When I asked how long that would take, he replied with a coy smile: "Maybe a day, maybe a week, maybe a month."
We insisted that we had every right to leave and were going to do so. One of the policemen walked over with his hand on his gun and taunted: "Go ahead and leave, just go ahead."
We remained seated. Our IDs were taken, and brought to the officers with laptops. I was questioned over the fact that my license was out of state, and asked if I had "something to hide." The police continued to hassle the kitchen workers, demanding licenses and dates of birth. One of the kitchen workers was shaking hysterically and kept providing the day's date, March 20, 2003, over and over.
As I continued to press for legal counsel, a female officer who had been busy typing on her laptop in the front of the restaurant, walked over and put her finger in my face. "We are at war, we are at war and this is for your safety," she exclaimed. As she walked away from the table, she continued to repeat it to herself: "We are at war, we are at war. How can they not understand this?"
I most certainly understand that we are at war. I also understand that the freedoms afforded to all of us in the Constitution were meant specifically for times like these. Our freedoms were carved out during times of strife by people who were facing brutal injustices, and were intended specifically so that this nation would behave differently in such times. If our freedoms crumble exactly when they are needed most, then they were really never freedoms at all.
After an hour and a half the INS agent walked back over and handed Asher and me our licenses. A policeman took us by the arm and escorted us out of the building. Before stepping out to the street, the INS agent apologized. He explained, in a low voice, that they did not think the two of us were in the restaurant. Several of the other patrons, though of South Asian descent, were in fact U.S. citizens. There were four taxi drivers, two students, one newspaper salesman -- unwitting customers, just like Asher and me. I doubt, though, they received any apologies from the INS or the Department of Homeland Security.
Nor have the over 600 people of South Asian descent currently being held without charge by the Federal government. Apparently, this type of treatment is acceptable. One of the taxi drivers, a U.S. citizen, spoke to me during the interrogation. "Please stop talking to them," he urged. "I have been through this before. Please do whatever they say. Please for our sake."
Three days later I phoned the restaurant to discover what happened. The owner was nervous and embarrassed and obviously did not want to talk about it. But I managed to ascertain that the whole thing had been one giant mistake. A mistake. Loaded guns pointed in faces, people made to crawl on their hands and knees, police officers clearly exacerbating a tense situation by kicking in doors, taunting, keeping their fingers on the trigger even after the situation was under control. A mistake. And, according to the ACLU a perfectly legal one, thanks to the PATRIOT Act.
The PATRIOT Act is just the first phase of the erosion of the Fourth Amendment. From the Justice Department has emerged a draft of the Domestic Securities Enhancement Act, also known as PATRIOT II. Among other things, this act would allow the Justice Department to detain anyone, anytime, secretly and indefinitely. It would also make it a crime to reveal the identity or even existence of such a detainee.
Every American citizen, whether they support the current war or not, should be alarmed by the speed and facility with which these changes to our fundamental rights are taking place. And all of those who thought that these laws would never affect them, who thought that the PATRIOT Act only applied to the guilty, should heed this story as a wake-up call. Please learn from my experience. We are all vulnerable so speak out and organize, our Fourth Amendment rights depend upon it.
AlertNet (http://www.alternet.org/story/15770/)
Counter-Point:
The Patriot Act under Fire
By John Yoo, Eric Posner
Posted: Tuesday, December 23, 2003
ON THE ISSUES
AEI Online (Washington)
Publication Date: December 1, 2003
Criticisms of the Patriot Act as unconstitutional and as a danger to individual rights are unfounded. Any marginal reduction in peacetime liberties entailed by the act seems to be a reasonable price to pay for an important weapon in fighting al Qaeda and other terrorists.
The Patriot Act has become a magnet for claims that the government is violating our individual rights. In early December, the federal commission investigating the September 11 attacks heard testimony from several prominent law professors on the dangers of the act. Last month, Al Gore called for the act's repeal, accused the Bush administration of suspending civil liberties, and claimed that the government was using "fear as a political tool to consolidate its power and to escape any accountability for its use." Democratic front-runner Howard Dean has called the act "morally wrong," "shameful," and "unconstitutional." Many cities have refused to assist the federal government in its implementation.
Putting aside the hysterics, the worst thing about the Patriot Act is its Orwellian name. It creates no revolution in government powers, nor does it violate the Constitution. If the act marginally reduces peacetime liberties, this is a reasonable price to pay for a valuable weapon against al Qaeda, a resourceful and adaptable enemy that is skilled at escaping detection.
The Patriot Act's most controversial provisions concern electronic surveillance of individuals who threaten national security. But the act did not initiate this practice. The system of secret search and wiretap warrants, granted in a secret hearing by a group of federal judges, without notice to the target, was established twenty-five years ago by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA was passed because before 1978, authorities could conduct searches to stop threats to national security without any judicial warrants at all. No court has ever found FISA to be unconstitutional, and just last year a special panel of federal appeals court judges reviewed the Patriot Act's central modification of FISA and unanimously found it constitutional.
Before the Patriot Act, FISA warrants were issued upon a showing that the "primary purpose" of the surveillance was to gather foreign intelligence information. Both the Department of Justice and the special FISA court that issued the warrants interpreted this language, for reasons known only to themselves, to mean that any such information gathered by counterintelligence services could not be shared, except under rare circumstances, with law enforcement officials. This "wall" prevented law enforcement officials and counterintelligence officials from pooling their information--a dangerous and stupid practice given that al Qaeda has demonstrated that terrorists can easily operate outside and inside the United States.
The Patriot Act changed the warrant standard from "primary purpose" to "significant purpose" in order to eliminate the wall of separation between foreign threats and domestic crimes, and to allow law enforcement to be used as a weapon against terrorism. Civil libertarians would have us believe that the Patriot Act allows CIA and NSA agents to roam freely through the country detaining anyone they please. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Patriot Act represents a modest retrenchment from an overcautious interpretation of FISA, but nothing like the pre-1978 regime of warrantless searches.
The Patriot Act also expands FISA to include business and other records that are relevant to a terrorism investigation. The claim that this provision is unconstitutional is false. Individuals generally do not have a Fourth Amendment right over records about them held by someone else. Given that al Qaeda terrorists have used libraries to conduct research and to communicate, and that their activities can be traced through credit-card receipts and travel reservations, this expansion of FISA is eminently reasonable.
Balancing Liberty and Security
Much of the rest of the Patriot Act contains similar common-sense adjustments that modernize existing laws like FISA. FISA warrants, for example, are now technology-neutral--for example, they allow continuing surveillance of a terrorist target even if he switches communication devices and methods. Warrants now authorize nationwide surveillance, rather than surveillance only within a single city or district. Patriot Act changes allow the search and surveillance tools that had been used against drug dealers and the Mafia to be used against terrorists.
These changes are modest and are worth the small, perhaps even imaginary, reduction in civil liberties. Even well-known liberal Democrats have dismissed the idea that constitutional freedoms are in danger. Sen. Dianne Feinstein stated: "I have never had a single abuse of the Patriot Act reported to me. My staff e-mailed the ACLU and asked them for instances of actual abuse. They e-mailed back and said they had none." Sen. Joe Biden said at a recent hearing that "the tide of criticism" being directed against the act "is both misinformed and overblown."
But some think that even a small restriction of civil liberties can never be justified. These people think that, as a mark of our commitment to freedom, courts should not allow the government to invade our civil liberties even during emergencies. The truth is the opposite. Civil liberties throughout our history have always expanded in peacetime and contracted during emergencies. During the Civil War, the two world wars, and the Cold War, Congress and the president restricted civil liberties, and courts deferred; during peacetime, civil liberties expanded.
The image of a government rationally balancing liberty and security might seem falsely reassuring. What if Mr. Gore is right that the government is using public fear as a tool for consolidating its power? Historical precedents--Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, the Roosevelt administration's internment of Japanese-Americans--do not bode well. Shouldn't the courts protect us against such abuses?
Whenever a war or emergency occurs, critics often argue that the government's reaction is motivated by fear. History surely does suggest that the government is frequently ill-prepared for emergencies, and that fear provoked by a new threat can spark official action. But this is not a bad thing. Although not all fear-driven policies are good--again, we must remember the Japanese-Americans' internment--fear provoked by emergency also can motivate government to react to new threats in creative ways. Common-sense changes in surveillance law could have been used against al Qaeda before they murdered three thousand people. Errors may occur, but they happen during peacetime as well as during emergencies.
What of the charge that the administration is using public fear to consolidate political power? History shows that new security policies usually last only as long as the war or emergency. The president and Congress usually voluntarily give up their emergency powers; when they do not, courts step in. Despite a succession of wars and emergencies since the Civil War, civil liberties in our country have expanded steadily.
President Roosevelt said at the beginning of the Great Depression that the only thing we need to fear is fear itself. But he later realized that the absence of fear could be just as dangerous, because it prevented the United States from preparing for the coming war. It took Pearl Harbor to shatter the complacency of the American public. We can only hope the absence of an al Qaeda attack on American soil during the last two years will not lull us back into our pre-September 11 stupor.
American Enterprise Institute (http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.19661,filter./pub_detail.asp)