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

Fails?

[Cheapy]

Why did they fail? I see it as a success in not authoritizing it.

Re:Fails?

[Guuge]

And for those of you praising Democrats and booing Republicans....both Republicans and Democrats voted against this.

Now that's just irresponsible of you. The article states that a whopping FIVE Republicans joined 42 Democrats in the filibuster. Only TWO Democrats voted to end the filibuster. But it gets better! One of those FIVE Republicans is Bill Frist, who changed his vote at the last minute just so he could be voting with the winners.

It may be unpleasant for some, but the truth is that the VAST MAJORITY of Republicans want to extend the Patriot Act and the VAST MAJORITY of Democrats want to end it. You cannot have had an adequate mathematics education if you insist that this vote was not along party lines.

Russ for President in 2008

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Russ for President in 2008

Re:Russ for President in 2008

[orthogonal]

Russ for President in 2008

Amen to that!

It's Russ Feingold, not faux "conservative" George W. Bush or the Republican party, who is upholding the most fundamental traditional American value: our freedom from tyrannical government.

Although I'm something of a liberal, I respected Ronald Reagan because he opposed Soviet tyranny. You remember Soviet Russia, right? Where secret police recorded every conversation, where people were arrested without warrants or habeas corpus, where "enemies of the state" were sent to gulags?

Ronald Reagan, whatever his other faults, was against that. George Dubya does all that: he's spying on Americans, arresting US citizens without giving them access to the courts, and legalized torture. He's even re-opened secret prisons in Eastern Europe.

And under Dubya's watch, we've seen extraordinary government secrecy, political appointees overruling government scientist and legal experts, and pervasive corruption in Washington.

This is the limited government and personal responsibility Conservatism is supposed to be all about?

Let's elect Russ Feingold, the only senator with the presence of mind to vote against the original Patriot Act.

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

In the years since the Patriot act was passed....

[aapold]

The New England Patriots have won three superbowls and not lost a playoff game. Now the act is in trouble... and the Pats are banged up, and no one gives them any chances to repeat. Coincidence?

Shocking

[daspriest]

Holy shit.... The government actually made a decision I agree with.

Re:A light in the darkness.

[robson]

Honestly, we can't expect any better conduct from Bush, a president who has been quoted as saying the Constitution is'just a goddamned piece of paper'.

Wasn't that Capitol Hill Blue article highly suspect? When I read it it just didn't sound real; no source is cited, and the quotes were just ridiculously over-the-top.

I'm not defending the President, mind you; I'm just saying we don't need fictional arguments against him when we have plenty of factual ones.

Re:*sigh* done with filibuster threats

[Nasarius]

This is the sort of bullshit that happens when you allow the balance of power between the three branches of government to be degraded by filibusters and the like. They impede the government's ability to do the work it's intended for.

So does a multi-party system. We could have a dictatorship and government would be very efficient indeed.

Filibusters are one of the few tools that prevent a slight majority from ramming through whatever legislation they want. Did you pass high school civics? They are in fact a critical part of checks and balances, or balance of power as you call it.

Re:Would it be inappropriate....

[Anonymous Coward]

In the english language, we use "her" to refer to a subject whom we know to be female. We say "they" or "he" when we do not know the gender or we are being non-specific about the subject.

We only use "they" when the subject is plural. In this case, since "individual" is singular and the pronoun is possessive, we would use "his."

Of course, the original poster could be a feminist, and then the rules of English do not apply.

Re:We don't deserve to win

[laughingcoyote]

Ask suspected terrorists for permission first before we bug them?

Well, that'd be one way to go about it. Of course, you could also ask a judge. There's this thing called a "search warrant". I've heard they even issued a few BEFORE the Patriot Act was passed.

Of course, you do have to bring probable cause that the person is breaking the law or planning to. What a crazy rule that is, huh?

I mean, what do you think would happen if we allowed warrantless searches, really? That they'd decide to skip any kind of trial too, and just lock those suspected of terrorism up in some remote military base? That kind of thing doesn't happen.

Re-frame the debate

[slo_learner]

I'm going to put on my flame retardant suit and fire this one up. The problem is that people want to kill us. In order to protect ourselves, we can simply stop everyone who wants to kill us from succeding (Patriot Act). This works great if there are very few people who want to kill us. If there are too many people who want to kill us then limiting that number becomes crucial.

Unfortunately, this means we have to ask ourselves why people want to kill us. The GWB story is that they are jealous because we are the embodiment of god's will (I'm paraphrasing). Personally, I think it is more closely related to foreign policy especially as it relates to domestic energy policies.

If the notion that we might want to understand why terrorists, and deposed dictators don't like us is too unpatriotic, then I guess we will continue with the same type of policies. Considering that we sold Saddam WMDs and trained and funded Al Qaeda this might be worth a second look.

Word choice

[j00bar]

Does anybody else despise CNN's word choice of "fails" in this headline? The Senate "fails" implies that it is something that should have been done but they were simply unable to achieve. How about a more neutral word, like "declines"? -jag

This is NOT over!!

[peacefinder]

Don't celebrate too soon.

Note that Sen. Frist voted with the majority. He didn't do this because he agreed that the act should expire, but because it will allow him to call a new vote whenever he sees that he can turn the tables. And given his Senate leadership position, that means he can wait until a few people leave chambers and call a quick vote very easily.

This will not be over even if the act does expire... you can expect to see some provisions stealthily wedged into unrelated bills next year. The only way to really end this is to elect a Congress and President that takes civil liberties seriously.

Get on it, people. The 2006 Congressional elections are coming up fast.

Re:We don't deserve to win

[drooling-dog]

I mean, what do you think would happen if we allowed warrantless searches, really?

Warrantless searches can be extremely useful in many circumstances. Suppose that you're in a position of power and somebody is being a pain in the ass by criticizing you in public or - God forbid - campaigning against you? Chances are they have a skeleton or two in their closet, and you need to be able to find it (or put one there for them) to put them in their place. Or, suppose you have connections in high places and you find out that your daughter is dating some liberal hippie? Surely there's something in his house that'll send him to jail for a couple of years (hopefully sans conjugal visits). Or, maybe you want to buy some poor schmuck's house, and he wants more money than you feel a person of your stature should have to pay. He'll reconsider after he starts finding muddy boot tracks on his bedroom carpet.

But even warrantless searches aren't always enough to shield the Prince from those who would spite him. It would also be Good and Necessary to be able to detain people indefinitely without charge, solely on your own authority and without judicial oversight. But I'm dreaming here - no leader of any free society could ever even suggest such a thing!