Patriot Act Author Introduces Bill To Limit Use of Patriot Act

wjcofkc writes "In an ironic but welcome twist, the author of the Patriot Act, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), is introducing the USA FREEDOM Act, a bill specifically aimed at countering the portions of the Patriot Act that were interpreted to let the NSA collect telephone metadata in bulk. The congressman has been a vocal opponent of the NSA's interpretation and misuse of the Patriot Act since Edward Snowden first leaked evidence of the program in June. On Wednesday, he wrote (PDF) to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder that the 'collection of a wide array of data on innocent Americans has led to serious questions about how government will use — or misuse — such information.'"

Comments

shoulda got it right the first time

[themushroom]

Here's betting that it will take much longer to get the anti-PATRIOT passed than the eyeblink it took to get the PATRIOT passed. I wonder what the opposite of a 9/11 is to get government to act so swiftly?

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[characterZer0]

I wonder what the opposite of a 9/11 is to get government to act so swiftly?

Voting out all the incumbents.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Vanderhoth]

Agreed, You know the only reason this is being introduced now is because the republican approval rating is circling the drain. Funny how they're all for freedom and following the constitution to the letter when there's a good chance the'll be unelectable in the next election, but they're willing to sell privacy and public rights to the highest bidder when they're the ones in power. The patriot act should have never been a law in the first place and should have been revoked long ago, one of Obama's biggest public disappointments was that it should have been the first thing he had done when he took over presidency when he actually had a majority in the house.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[AlphaWoIf_HK]

The government acted to quickly with PATRIOT

When in reality, they shouldn't have acted much at all.

but that's how the Government always acts.

No, it isn't. Almost without exception, they always act that quickly only when they stand to gain more power, and in those cases, we usually always lose some of our individual liberties.

It's doubtful people could have forseen that, and now they're trying to correct it.

"doubtful"? Are you kidding me? The PATRIOT ACT included so many provisions that violated people's freedoms and gave the government so much power that there is no way people did not foresee this. Your problem is that you are naive enough to give the government the benefit of the doubt; they deserve no such thing.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[phantomfive]

Your problem is that you are naive enough to give the government the benefit of the doubt; they deserve no such thing.

I would argue this is entirely why we went to war with Iraq. If enough people hadn't said, "I'm not sure, but he's our president so I'll trust him......" then we wouldn't have gone.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[rahvin112]

Well wonder no more. It would be someone at the NSA using the illegally collected data to embarrass a congresscritter from each party. The most effective release would be adultery particularly if it involves some form of "deviant" sexuality. Think along the lines of propositioning a transsexual for sex. Other big winners are use of illegal drugs or sex with a minor.

In fact I pray the next "snowden" does just that.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent +1 Delusional for ever thinking Obama didn't love the Patriot Act. The man jerks off to it.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[cold fjord]

Funny how they're all for freedom and following the constitution to the letter when there's a good chance the'll be unelectable in the next election, but they're willing to sell privacy and public rights to the highest bidder when they're the ones in power.

What do you think Obamacare is? Intrusive? Massive power grab? Enforced by the IRS? Plenty of other bad things?

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Jane Q. Public]

"Agreed, You know the only reason this is being introduced now is because the republican approval rating is circling the drain."

The Republican approval rating? You gotta be kidding!

According to a poll by Wasingtong Times the other day, all of Congress gets just a 5% approval rating (the lowest I have ever seen), while Obama's approval rating was also at a record low (37%).

Don't get me wrong; no doubt Republican approval rating IS down. But so is that of the Democrats... and which one is fighting hardest to go down the drain first is pretty much up in the air.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[cold fjord]

Heritage repudiated that plan long ago after rethinking it. They determined it was a bad idea. You should give them credit for being able to do so.

ObamaCare's Heritage

In that 11th Circuit appeal, which is almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department cited Heritage as an authority in support of its position. Heritage responded with an amicus brief explaining that its view had changed:

If citations to policy papers were subject to the same rules as legal citations, then the Heritage position quoted by the Department of Justice would have a red flag indicating it had been reversed. . . . Heritage has stopped supporting any insurance mandate.

Heritage policy experts never supported an unqualified mandate like that in the PPACA [ObamaCare]. Their prior support for a qualified mandate was limited to catastrophic coverage (true insurance that is precisely what the PPACA forbids), coupled with tax relief for all families and other reforms that are conspicuously absent from the PPACA. Since then, a growing body of research has provided a strong basis to conclude that any government insurance mandate is not only unnecessary, but is a bad policy option. Moreover, Heritage's legal scholars have been consistent in explaining that the type of mandate in the PPACA is unconstitutional.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[riverat1]

I'm one of those "Security isn't worth it if it causes us to lose some of our individual liberties."

That was what was ironic to me. George W Bush said "They hate our freedom." so what do we do? We turned right around and reduced our freedom with things like the PATRIOT Act. Maybe they don't hate us quite as much now.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[slick7]

Here's betting that it will take much longer to get the anti-PATRIOT passed than the eyeblink it took to get the PATRIOT passed. I wonder what the opposite of a 9/11 is to get government to act so swiftly?

Put all politicians, lobbyists, banksters, major corporate players in prison (like they did in Iceland) , cancel all debts and start over. Ventura and Stern '16.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Fjandr]

Bin Laden's demand was that the US remove all troops from certain Middle Eastern countries, not that the US convert to Islam.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[cold fjord]

Full text: bin Laden's 'letter to America'

(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[10101001 10101001]

What do you think Social Security is? Intrusive? Massive power grab? Enforced by the SSA? Plenty of other bad things?

Seriously, the biggest complaint Republicans seem to have is they (1) offered Obamacare as an alterative to Universal Health Care, (2) figured Democrats would never support, and (3) are finally upset that Obamacare passed because (a) they can't claim they made it, (b) can't get behind it working because it goes against their "government can't do anything right" mantra, and (c) never really wanted people to have any sort of decent health care coverage because to actually deliver on anything good would basically cut off their ability to whine about it.

I mean, fuck, the whole Government Shutdown is *precisely* what the Republican mantra is--to cut off non-essential spending. So, why exactly are Republicans bothering with any sort of effort to fix the problem? Because as long as they act upset, they can whine and cry about the big, mean Democrats. Oh, and let's not forget, the very mantra they support if followed through would put said Republicans out of a job, especially if they realized how unnecessary they are. Non-essential, indeed.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[lister king of smeg]

No, voting out the Republicans.

Funny the democrats had no problem approving of it when it was up for renewal. It made it through the democrat dominated senate and was signed by a democratic president a few years ago. both parties are just as happy to screw over the people if you don't see that your either ignorant or stupid.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Jawnn]

Mod parent +1 Delusional for ever thinking Obama didn't love the Patriot Act. The man jerks off to it.

How inconvenient for you must be that fact that in 2005 then-Senator Obama was one of the few who voted against extending the wiretap provisions of The Patriot Act. This, shortly after the abuses of those provisions had first come to light.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[anagama]

This is a third party doctrine issue. The 3PD conflates "perfect secrecy" with "reasonable expectation of privacy". The 3PD is the rule that if you share info w/ a third party, even if that party promises you confidentiality, and even if they never actually breach your confidence, then the Feds can just have the data because the 4th Amendment doesn't apply at all (you have no reasonable expectation of privacy). Even Justice Sotomayer is starting to think that the 3PD is outdated. See her concurrence, specifically, the paragraph starting at PDF page 19: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/10-1259.pdf

If the 3PD disappeared, all of this stuff would have to go through a 4th amendment analysis and a third grader could demonstrate it fails to comply. The only reason Section 215 of PATRIOT Act has the effect it has, and all of these programs are "legal" -- is the 3PD. Take that away, and it's all unconstitutional. Fail to address the 3PD, and any proposed reform is fig leaf.

As for Irony, the Feds are hell bent on getting Snowden, but if the rules that apply to people applied to it, it would have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the documents he released because the Feds shared that info with a third party, namely, Booz Allen Hamilton.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[steelfood]

That's just rhetoric, to get the masses to follow. In reality, Bin Laden wanted the U.S. out of Saudi Arabia. He was combining Muslim malcontent with the U.S., and especially religious zeal, to his own ends. And while merely being malcontent would make people wish to act, zeal causes people to act without thinking. The zealous will kill themselves for their cause if they believe their actions will gain them entry into paradise for their afterlife.

Sanity

[Anonymous Coward]

Government isn't bad. Bad government is bad.

Guess we'll see where Obama really stands...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but we already do, don't we?

In favor of bigger, "better", more-overweening government.

Can't be done

[Overzeetop]

As has been pointed out to us in the last three weeks by the GOP, you can't simply "correct" what's wrong with a law, you have to repeal it ENTIRELY. Nothing short of that is acceptable. Even if there are things that are useful, the whole bathtub must be thrown out because to simply change the parts which are not working would be to admit that the Law isn't the end of civilization as we know it.

I'm with the GOP - repeal it entirely or I'll hold my breath until I pass out. Or something like that.

Re:Can't be done

[AlphaWoIf_HK]

Even if there are things that are useful, the whole bathtub must be thrown out because to simply change the parts which are not working would be to admit that the Law isn't the end of civilization as we know it.

The entire law is actually garbage.

Re:Can't be done

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering how much Obama railed against the Patriot act when he was in Congress, you would think he would have made that a priority in his first two years as President. With a solid Democrat majority, he could have amended or done away with it. Yet, he and Democrats did nothing. Which should be the first clue that both Democrats and Republicans are beholden to the very large and very powerful bureaucracy. It is nearly impossible to reduce the size and spending of government.

The system is going to have to crash before things change. Unfortunately that is the history of the world as we know it. Change only happens violently.

Re:Can't be done

[nojayuk]

In June 2013 67 Democratic and 214 Republican Senators and Representatives voted for the most recent reauthorisation of the Patriot Act. The GOP doesn't seem to want it repealed going by those numbers. Maybe you should push to get more Democrats elected instead.

Re:Can't be done

[sumdumass]

I think you give Obama too much credit. He saw how to exploit this just like he saw how to exploit the IRS and use it against his political enemies. Obama railed against raising the debt limit when he was senator calling it unpatriotic and now he insists on no negotiations to lower the deficit as a condition to raising the debt limit. (yes, I know that is a political add, but it has Obama's own voice in it).

Despite amending or doing away with it, Obama could also through legitimate power as the head of the executive, ensure that US agencies used the power the Patriot Act gave the government in ways that we would not be concerned with today. Instead, he used that same power to expand the surveillance and even justify that expansion through the Patriot act.

He and the democrats did nothing because they saw it as a way to increase their power and objectives. They took the ball and ran because they wanted to. If you look at how Obama was elected to senator, you would see that It has nothing to do with being beholden to anything other then their ideology. The entire Obamacare debacle proves this. Harry Reid himself called the medical device tax a stupid tax yet he refuses to consider anything to repeal it or any changes to the Affordable Care Act out of ideological persistence.

Yet, I have no problems with believing either side will attempt to be against the other side when they are in power. It's all ideology if you ask me.

Re:Can't be done

[nojayuk]

It's the law of the land now. To repeal or alter it will take a vote in the Legislature comprising majorities in favour in both the House and the Senate plus a signature by the President. There are complications in that process (supermajority for cloture required in the Senate, possible veto by the President, possible override of any veto by Congress etc.) but that's how it's done in the US, as prescribed by the Constitution. Electing more and better legislators who would vote to repeal or modify the law is up to you and those who consider it important. Going by the votes on the Act over the past few years if you want to work to elect candidates who might do your will then supporting the Democratic Party is probably your best choice.

I'm not an American, by the way but I was in the USA when 9/11 happened. I met with a group of young US citizens a few days afterwards and we talked about the panic that was gripping the US and wondered when things would get back to normal. I prophesied the period of headless-chicken panic (attacks on Sikhs, National Guard soldiers at airports etc.) would last about six months and I was told I was crazy to think it would last that long. This was the USA we were talking about, after all.

Re:Can't be done

[AlphaWoIf_HK]

Going by the votes on the Act over the past few years if you want to work to elect candidates who might do your will then supporting the Democratic Party is probably your best choice.

Both parties have shown that they hate freedom, so voting for either Republicans or Democrats is simply inadvisable.

The thing created turned on its creator

[Rooked_One]

in a sense.

The retardlicans created the patriot act so they could do "this and that," but now that the dummycrats have been using it, the rerardlicans think its bad.

Now, sit back and realize the people making all of these decisions are your elected officials.

Re:The thing created turned on its creator

[magsol]

Or perhaps someone independent of his/her political affiliations believes this will truly improve things for America and its citizens?

Yeah, I couldn't keep a straight face either.

Re:The thing created turned on its creator

[NoKaOi]

Or perhaps someone independent of his/her political affiliations believes this will truly improve things for America and its citizens?

Obviously improving things for the US and its citizens would never be a Congressman's motivation, however, it is rather refreshing that a politician is doing something to brownnose his constituents rather than brownnosing corporate campaign contributors.

Pandora's Box

[cookYourDog]

has been opened. There will be attempts at legislation, but there's no removing the purchased influence, consolidated power, and vested interests that grew as a result of the Patriot act.

When Obama vetoes this

[Kohath]

When Obama vetoes this, will it still be Bush's fault?

Re:When Obama vetoes this

[phantomfive]

Yes, but if that happens, Obama will suck just as much if not worse.

Re:When Obama vetoes this

[NoKaOi]

When Obama vetoes this, will it still be Bush's fault?

Yes. Bush was the one who got it passed. He was the one who lied to us about what he would do with it. Obama is simply working with what Bush left him. He wouldn't lie to us the way Bush did. He told us he would end warrantless wiretapping, he told us he would close Gitmo, he told us he would bring the troops home from the Middle East. What? Gitmo is still open and torturing people without due process? The NSA is tapping everything without due process? Troop levels in Afghanistan have more than tripled since he took office? Nevermind.

Re:When Obama vetoes this

[Princeofcups]

When Obama vetoes this, will it still be Bush's fault?

The guy who created it, or the guy who didn't get rid of it? Yes, it's Bush's fault for giving Obama such a nasty toy to play with.

Re:When Obama vetoes this

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. There's a difference betweet Sauron who forged the ring, and Frodo who didn't want to give it back after using it a while...

Re:When Obama vetoes this

[russotto]

Yes. There's a difference betweet Sauron who forged the ring, and Frodo who didn't want to give it back after using it a while...

So I was trying to think about who would be Gollum in this scenario... and came up with Dick Cheney. We're doomed.

Re:When Obama vetoes this

[WiiVault]

Totally agree with you except for Gitmo. His opponents tried to make it sound like by giving those bastards a trial and bringing them to NYC that somehow everybody was in danger, and they were gonna get off easy (in NYC yeah right). If I recall for whatever reason he doesn't have the authority to force the issue because he can't bring them to the states without congress.

That said he is a coward who did the base minimum to say he tried when people called him on it. If he had pushed back against the fear mongering and reminded people that only that the justice is a conviction not indefinite detention he might have been able to do it. Hell if anything I would have pushed the point and reminded people that if we ever plan on charging them it would be better to do it soon instead of letting them sit in limbo until some future date while the evidence gets lost and witnesses disappear and then we really are stuck with having to hold them forever. Plus how do you defend that one to our allies. Um yeh we don't really have enough to convict these guys every since Mohammed Kablewie died in that hunger strike last year. And nobody can find the taped confession. But we can't let them go.

Re:When Obama vetoes this

[M. Baranczak]

Diane Feinstein as Grima Wormtongue, Edward Snowden as Frodo and John Boehner as Jar Jar Binks.

Re:When Obama vetoes this

[sociocapitalist]

When Obama vetoes this, will it still be Bush's fault?

The guy who created it, or the guy who didn't get rid of it? Yes, it's Bush's fault for giving Obama such a nasty toy to play with.

It's not mutually exclusive. One is at fault for allowing it in the first place and the other is at fault for allowing it to continue.

Re:When Obama vetoes this

[cold fjord]

The guy who created it, or the guy who didn't get rid of it? Yes, it's Bush's fault for giving Obama such a nasty toy to play with.

The Patriot Act would have gone away if it hadn't been reauthorized, so no. It is all Obama at this point.

Common sense does not apply

[s.petry]

This is the mess we have put ourselves in in the last 30 years. Bad laws are not repealed, and due to case law limitations they are nearly impossible to repeal. By our own insane laws, the only way to fix things is to pass laws which modify law.

If you think this is crazy you are not alone. A Lawyer would probably spit nails at this, but the corruption we see in Government has also been happening in Law. Except that in Law it has been happing for much longer. The corrupted Government could never have become so entrenched in a clean legal system.

We need to do much more than can the politicians and establish term limits. We also need to get rid of numerous corrupt judges and justices, and start doing what you suggest in repealing laws. One of the first should be the ruling that allowed case law to take precedence over legal matters.

Re:Common sense does not apply

[Sarten-X]

One of the first should be the ruling that allowed case law to take precedence over legal matters.

Case law is what determines the current valid meaning of the written laws, as precedent. Get rid of case law, and all the clarity of modern law disappears. Goodbye, privacy. Free speech? Well that still probably applies to things you say, but nothing written online... or maybe it's just going to cover the use of your wine press. After all, it was Supreme Court cases that established our current interpretations of these basic laws. "Freedom of speech, or of the press", as written, really only covered printed documents and verbal speech, and the "unreasonable searches" in the Fourth Amendment meant physically going through a person's personal effects.

Without the baseline of case law, the vague written law is no help in determining what's legal or not. You could be arrested for anything, and it must go to court for a judge to decide. Older similar cases can't be used as precedent, so the prosecutor could argue any crazy theory he wants, and know that he'll be able to at least present evidence... but evidence standards are based in case law, too, so the judge has no reason to reject evidence that, for example, showed up at the police station's door with a note saying it came from your car. Let's hope the jury is on your side, but since you're defending yourself against someone who's well-trained in the art of convincing people to believe a story (because, without case law, that's the prosecutor's whole job), your acquittal is unlikely.

Sure, getting rid of case law would make the written law easier to understand, but practically useless.

Re:Common sense does not apply

[icebike]

By our own insane laws, the only way to fix things is to pass laws which modify law.

Nothing in our laws prohibits repealing laws, and it is done all the time.
There is nothing in Case Law that holds any sway over the actions of Congress.

Of course, if a president who ran on a platform opposing the Patriot act hadn't switched his position once elected it would be a lot easier to get a majority in Congress. Is there even one person who doesn't believe both parties would rush to repeal the Patriot act IN TOTAL the minute the president asked them to?
Anyone?

Re:This is why America is still great,in my mind

[wjcofkc]

In some cases the only reason we are not afraid of change is because we are terrified of the present - because we turned a blind eye toward what led to that present. Other times we are not afraid of change because we are oh so very royally pissed off at the present. Often it's both. In the final instance we are not afraid of change because it means more bandwidth, better graphics, new medicines, and the promise of low orbit vacationing. When we are afraid of change that must happen for the improvement of our society, that change is accomplished through picketing, civil disobedience, propaganda, rioting, and violence.

What a Scam

[Anonymous Coward]

First he gets to grandstand for "protecting our freedom", then he gets to grandstand for "protecting our privacy".

Kind of like Dick Cheney: first he makes millions destroying Iraq then he makes millions rebuilding it. Then repeat.

Captcha = "bilked"

Re:Yes, cause apathy wins elections!

[AlphaWoIf_HK]

Oh no wait, it's Green party fucks, right? Or Libertarians? Or [insert a worthless third party here].

It's whichever third party you agree with. Republicans and Democrats have had their chance, and they've shown that they both despise freedom.

Better idea

[fnj]

Simple. Repeal the fucking thing in its entirety. Declare victory, if that's what it takes to float your boat. Then repeal it as the abomination it is. Let the rule of law return as it was. Yeah, the US wasn't a perfect garden of eden even before 9/11, but it was a hell of a lot better starting point than it is now.

Re:Are you daft?

[gl4ss]

He tried to close Guantanamo Bay - he signed the fucking executive order - and Congress moved to defund the effort.

if the president can kidnap, shoot people from the sky and start "conflicts" without asking the congress but can't close an internationally illegal domestically-loopholed prison camp that's fucking expensive to run... then something is pretty fucked up.

(he could have done it, but they would still be stuck with the problem of what to do with people they imprisoned with flimsy evidence and can't send anywhere, and most definitely don't want to send them to usa..)