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 The patriot act should have never been a law in the first place and should have been revoked long ago, one of Obama's biggest public disappointments was that it should have been the first thing he had done when he took over presidency when he actually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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

Sanity

[Anonymous Coward]

Government isn't bad. Bad government is bad.

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

[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: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.

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

[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

[M. Baranczak]

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

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: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: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.

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.

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..)