A golden opportunity to declaw Patriot Act
You remember the USA Patriot Act, don’t you? It was that 342-page bill that sped through a supplicant Congress within weeks of 9/11, dismantling our privacy rights like a castoff Hollywood set. A reauthorization in 2006 made some things better and some worse, but mostly the law stayed the same—really bad for American freedom.
Well, it is time to revisit this act of congressional cowardice that vastly expanded the ability of the government to unjustly intrude on our private lives. Three provisions will expire by the end of the year, which means Congress will have to act.
The Senate Judiciary Committee debated a reauthorization bill Thursday offered by committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Sen. Diane Feinstein of California. The measure falls short of resurrecting our shattered liberties, but it is a starting point.
You would think that with solid Democratic majorities in Congress, the Patriot Act’s unleashing of FBI surveillance on innocent Americans would finally be redressed. But the fear among lawmakers is palpable that doing anything to return a constitutional balance to domestic spying operations will play badly come election time.
I can see the Dittoheads now, on the one hand demanding that big government stay out of providing health insurance options, while on the other hand insisting that Big Brother be allowed to continue to peer into the financial, travel, communications and library records of anyone it wants with little or no evidence of wrongdoing. Principled consistency has never been one of their strong suits.
Here are the sections of the act that will expire:
--John Doe Roving Wiretaps. Under the act the FBI can go to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and obtain a single warrant to tap multiple communications devices. But unlike a roving wiretap in a criminal investigation, the Patriot Act doesn’t require the government to identify the target or the devices to be tapped. By leaving these details wide open, the warrant’s execution is left entirely to the discretion of government agents, inviting privacy invasion and abuse.
—Lone Wolf. This provision allows the government to obtain a FISA warrant when the target is not connected to an international terrorist group or a foreign nation. The idea is that a foreign terrorist might be acting alone. But when a terror suspect has no ties to international terrorism, the investigation looks quite a bit more like a criminal matter that can be handled through regular constitutional processes. Besides, the Department of Justice has said that this authority has never been invoked. It’s obviously not needed.
—Section 215, or the Library Provision. This is perhaps the best known part of the Patriot Act. It allows the government to go to the FISA court for “any tangible thing” relevant to a terror investigation—including library records. The provision is incredibly broad, allowing the government to demand huge quantities of records that don’t have to pertain to the target of the investigation. It is an authorization for the FBI to sweep up and permanently store all sorts of personal details about people not suspected of doing anything wrong.
Even so, the FBI has been eschewing section 215 orders, preferring instead to use another gift of the Patriot Act, National Security Letters, as a way to bypass any judicial oversight. In 2008 there were only 13 requests for section 215 orders, while in 2006 (the last figure available) there were 49,425 NSLs issued by the FBI, up from 8,500 in 2000.
NSLs are secret demand letters that can be internally created without court review. The Patriot Act reduced the standard to issue one and extended their reach. As long as the FBI claims the information sought is “relevant” to a terror investigation, NSLs can collect volumes of personal financial records, credit reports, Internet searches and other sensitive information about Americans who are not suspected of anything.
The NSL provisions will not expire at the end of the year. They are permanent, though Leahy’s legislation would put limits on NSLs after four years.
The passage of the Patriot Act was an American tragedy, one that can largely be undone with a little political backbone. This is where the Democrats in Congress can earn their keep. But will they?
Robyn Blumner is a civil liberties and labor law expert who writes about individual freedom, trade, globalization and workers’ rights. She is a columnist for the St. Petersburg Times in St. Petersburg, Fla., and syndicated by Tribune Media Services. E-mail her at blumner@sptimes.com.
Oct 8, 2009 at 7:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
I'm not sure which 'he' you are talking about. Assuming your poll is not from Fox Noise--which has ZERO credibility--I just have to disagree. However, I also understand that polls are like statistics---you can make them say anything you want. But, even if you take THAT out of the equation, it makes NO sense to take 20% right off the top of the money available for health care, and give it to support the outrageous salaries of the h.c. administrators. I don't know why we are one of the very few countries that still allows making profits off of peoples' health issues.
Oct 8, 2009 at 11:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Interestingly his current stance is also in line with the majority of the those polled on this same issue.
Oct 8, 2009 at 11:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Except--Look what's happening: Baucus is CLEARLY acting to preserve the millions he gets from the health care lobby--there is no credible source that he can point to that's supports his position against the so called public option. The best he could come up with is: "I can count. There are not 60 votes in the Senate to support it, and until someone shows me that, I can't support it." (that's pretty close to what he actually said) That's the best he's got? He doesn't think enough others will support it, so he won't either? To me, the connection is clear. He is voting to keep those h.c. lobby dollars coming in. I'm not aware of any votes by Russ that are even close to being comparable.
Oct 8, 2009 at 12:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Professor, first I admit I am not a large fan of much of Baucus’ or Feingold’s work, although at times both bring good points to the table. Your point on Baucus is not logic driven with your stance on Feingold; Baucus has received less money over the same time period as Feingold and both have received the majority of their money from lawyers not the health care industry or big Pharma.
Oct 7, 2009 at 9 p.m.
Suggest removal
I'll take your word, RAF, that the numbers you cite are correct. But I'm not sure that, alone, means anything. A sad truth these days is that it's hardly possible to get elected to federal office without donations, absent a status of being independently wealthy,. But the implication that because Russ got 10% of his money from 'lawyers', he would be in their pocket, isn't connecting the dots correctly. If a senator had only a few donors, with big money (check out a couple of states in the south), and consistenly voted with those interests, then such a comparison might be relevant. That has never been a consistent voting style of Russ.
Oct 7, 2009 at 10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/...
Oct 7, 2009 at 9:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
John don't take my word for it, look it up. You could start with opensecrets.org where is shows 10% of all his money has come from Lawyers, feel free to look for your own ideas of "pockets".
Oct 7, 2009 at 12:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Break it down RAF...whos' pocket is he in?
Oct 7, 2009 at 12:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
“For one thing, I don't have to worry about who's pocket he is in”
_
Feingold has received more than 26 million dollars in fewer than 10 years, and you think you don’t have to worry about whose pocket he is in?
Oct 6, 2009 at 6:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Let's dismantle DHS and "border" checks that occur anywhere within 100 miles of the border while we are at it.
Ezoner - I suggest that after reading the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and the Patriot Act that you then spend a few quality weeks reading the Federalist Papers.
Oct 6, 2009 at 5:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Blaming the "other guys" will get us nowhere, except to enable both major political parties. Our common enemy is oligarchy. Until most of us can agree on that, we'll just keep on spiraling faster and faster...
Oct 6, 2009 at 4:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yes, I do believe Feingold to be sincere, DiGriz. (Qualify that, as necessary, under heading: "politician".) He is definitely no lemming and I have great respect for that quality. This does not imply that we agree, philosophically. McCain-Feingold is also in violation of the Constitution, in my opinion.
Speaking of the Constitution and attacks... have you seen this? http://oathkeepers.org/oath/ What's your opinion?
Oct 6, 2009 at 4:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Griz--I'm not sure what you mean by Russ's "act". For one thing, I don't have to worry about who's pocket he is in--especially when compared to, for example, the morons in the Senate who are ignoring poll after poll showing high public support for a public option, yet trying to come up with all sorts of bull-crap excuses why they won't support it. It becomes clear when you check how much money they get from the health care lobby. Clearly more interested in keeping that money, rather than vote with what the public wants. Take Max Baucus: He won't vote for it, because he doesn't think enough others will...talk about circular logic! But HIS act becomes clear when you see the millions he's gotten from that lobby. And, I'm sorry, but if you want to talk about greed, power and selfishness, are you saying it was the DEMS that got us to the point that the top 1% of the rich have more wealth than the bottom 95% combined? Bush and Co. did a LOT more for the rich folk, than the middle class.
Oct 6, 2009 at 3:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
"I can see the Dittoheads now, on the one hand demanding that big government stay out of providing health insurance options, while on the other hand insisting that Big Brother be allowed to continue to peer into the financial, travel, communications and library records of anyone it wants with little or no evidence of wrongdoing."
Unfortunately, that minor detail will not deter conservatives in their futile attempts to rationalize the paradox.
Oct 6, 2009 at 2:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Fool and Prof:
AMEN!
Oct 6, 2009 at 1:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Well said, Professor, except to add that the unconstitutionality of the USA Patriot Act is also very much anti-conservative, despite what the neo-cons would like us to believe.
Oct 6, 2009 at 1:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
I'll always thank Russ F. for being the only Senator with enough brass--and brains--to realize that this act took us another step away from being the kind of unique country that we are--or maybe were. We played right into the hands of the terrorists, who abhor our freedom. Every time we've done this in our history, we later regret it. And because today's Dems are mostly gutless, and Dem in name only, it will take a long time--if ever--for us to get rid of these unconstitutional provisions.
Oct 6, 2009 at 12:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ezoner,
I doubt you have ever read, much less know anything about the "Patriot" Act. Or the Constitution for that matter; nor why the latter was written. You let unreferenced plays to your wild fear overtake your commitment to freedom and democracy, making claims of “saftey” (sic), which you can't even spell.
*
"[T]he best legislation enacted in t he past 50 years." How many nations thwarted? Sheez! In this time of wild, ill considered statements, you are really the champ. Read it, read it, read it, and ponder the empowerments it enables; or if you are too lazy, or it is too hard to understand, reread the article above, maybe a little more carefully, and try to begin to entertain the, OUR, egregiously unconstitutional implications.
Oct 6, 2009 at 12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
congrats ezoner. if i was a twitter i would 'tweet' your post as the silliest thing ive heard today!! bravo. best legislation in 50 years. ha.
Oct 6, 2009 at 12:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Once again you guys are willing to compromise the saftey and security of American People and prosperity. How many lives have been saved? How mnay actions have been thwarted? The reality is that the Patriot Act was possibly the best legislation enacted in t he past 50 years.
Oct 6, 2009 at 11 a.m.
Suggest removal
(It says "SHE is" and "email HER" .... and in the paper they print her photo)
.
I object to the headline, as "declaw" is a word implying taking something away that is needed. By rewriting the PATRIOT Act, we will be reasserting civilian control over wiretap and interrogation methods.
Oct 6, 2009 at 10:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Another case where our big government Dems and Reps are all the same. The Patriot Act was introduced by Bush, not read by Congress, and voted YES by Obama.
Oct 6, 2009 at 10:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Thank you, Mr Blumner. On behalf of all of us who love TRUE democracy. And, as I told them all around me recently at the Nobel Museum's display of the tyranny of the "Patriot" Act in Stockholm, our Senator, from our hometown, was the ONLY senator in the nation with the heart and b*lls to vote against it. A thousand more cheers for Russ!
Oct 6, 2009 at 10:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
"The passage of the Patriot Act was an American tragedy.... " No truer words have ever been written. The Patriot Act proved that the 9/11 terrorists "won" initiating destruction the U.S. Constitution by reactionaries from within. It's expiration should not just be allowed but demanded.
Oct 6, 2009 at 10:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Where the Hell is everybody? Oh, they're over commenting on some idiot named Brent or something. Shows the direction we are heading.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.