Senate Fails To Reauthorize Patriot Act Provisions

PostConsumerRecycled writes "CNN is reporting that 'The Senate on Friday rejected attempts to reauthorize several provisions of the USA Patriot Act as infringing too much on Americans' privacy and liberty, dealing a huge defeat to the Bush administration and Republican leaders ... If a compromise is not reached, the 16 Patriot Act provisions expire on December 31.' The story also links to listing of the provisions that will expire."

Comments

Here's the reference to Bush's remark

[billstewart]

Bush calls Constitution just a G-ddamned piece of paper

Re:Here's the reference to Bush's remark

[Adult film producer]

I'll add two links to continue your post. The first one is Doug Thompson's rebuttal to all the people that read the story and went ape-shit for him printing it.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/arti cle_7787.shtml

The second post is a follow-up to the follow-up that he wrote,

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/arti cle_7797.shtml

Re:Russ for President in 2008

[whovian]

Russ for President in 2008

Sorry you got modded a troll.

What the moderator probably didn't know is just how instrumental Senator Russ Feingold was in rallying fellow senators' support. Here is the text to his speech:

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
Remarks as the Senate Considers Ending Debate on Reauthorization of the USA PATRTIOT Act

As Prepared

December 16, 2005

Mr. President, on Wednesday evening, I laid out in detail my concerns about the Patriot Act reauthorization bill that we are now considering on the floor. In its current form, I cannot support the conference report, and I cannot consent to limit debate on it. The leaders of this Congress need to figure out a way to change this report to address the important civil liberties issues that I and other Senators from both sides of the aisle have discussed over the past three days.

This morning we saw an astounding story in the New York Times. Since 2002, the government has been reportedly wiretapping the international phone and email conversations of hundreds, even thousands of people inside the United States, without wiretap orders. You want to talk about abuses? I can't imagine a more shocking example of an abuse of power, to eavesdrop on American citizens without first getting a court order based on some evidence that they are possibly criminals, terrorists or spies. Mr. President, it is truly astonishing to read that this Administration would go this far beyond the bounds of the statutes and the Constitution. We as an institution have the duty, the obligation, to get to the bottom of this.

I hope that this morning's revelation drives home to people that this body must be absolutely vigilant in our oversight of government power. And I don't want to hear again from the Attorney General or anyone on this floor that this government has shown it can be trusted to use the power we give it with restraint and care. This shocking revelation ought to send a chill down the spine of every Senator and every American.

With that in mind, let me review my main concerns about this conference report.

First, section 215. Remember, this is the section where Attorney General Ashcroft once said that librarians concerned about the privacy rights of their patrons were "hysterical." But then the current Attorney General conceded at his nomination hearing in the Senate Judiciary that some changes would be justified. Unfortunately, the Administration was not willing to make real changes to the provision to protect the rights and freedoms of innocent Americans.

The other night, I described in detail the evolution of this provision through the legislative process. The bottom line is this - the Senate bill had a three prong test requiring some connection between the records sought and a person suspected of being a terrorist or spy. The conference report abandoned that connection and instead relies on a standard of relevance to an intelligence investigation. That is pretty much an "anything goes" standard that fails to protect the records of law-abiding Americans. There is no requirement in this conference report that will prevent government fishing expeditions. Read the provision and it is as plain as day. The three prong test has been turned into three examples of relevance. They are not protections at all against government overreaching.

The provisions of the bill relating to National Security Letters are also seriously deficient. There is no requirement that the records sought under that authority, which doesn't involve a court at all, have some connection to a suspected terrorist or spy. The judicial review that the conference report allows after the fact, of the NSL itself and the mandatory gag order, is a mirage. After what the Times reported this morning, no one in this body should be comfortable with the government having this kind of unreviewable power.

Finally, there is the issue of so-called sneak and peek searches, when the government secretly e

Re:A light in the darkness.

[isotope23]

It would be nice, for a change, to hear of some specific examples of how the government has used its powers beyond the reasonable scope of national security.

How about this

"Some NSA officials were so concerned about the legality of the program that they refused to participate, the Times said. Questions about the legality of the program led the administration to temporarily suspend it last year and impose new restrictions."

When even people inside the NSA question its legality I'd say it's pretty clear it has crossed the line.

Re:It's Too Bad...I can't see straight.

[drooling-dog]

I don't think they made it happen, but it's just possible that they let it happen, perhaps not realizing the full scale of what "it" would be. Anything more than that is just expecting too much evil from too many people, each knowing that they could be facing a death sentence if the cat got out of the bag.

But it's still a little spooky that (if I remember correctly) the "New American Century" document that anticipated Bush's Iraq policy included an observation that a catastrophe "on the order of Pearl Harbor" might be necessary to win public support for a prolonged war in the Middle East. Many of the authors of that 1990s paper later played (and still play) key roles in the Bush administration.