PATRIOT Pushback

Renewal of the PATRIOT Act, nearly a done deal earlier this week, has hit a snag.

Sens. Larry Craig (R., Idaho), John Sununu (R., N.H.), Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska), Dick Durbin (D., Ill.), Russ Feingold (D., Wis.) and Ken Salazar (D., Colo.) said they will fight reauthorization of the entire measure unless it incorporates changes to prevent excessive government intrusion in personal matters. [...]

On close inspection of the deal, privacy advocates and business groups concluded that important provisions that existed in the Senate version of the bill to prevent civil-rights abuses in terror investigations had been gutted. In particular, they felt there wasn't sufficient judicial oversight of National Security Letters, a form of subpoena used to demand phone records and other business records without the approval of a judge. While the proposed law does allow recipients to appeal the letters, it makes it relatively easy for the government to defeat a challenge by claiming that demand for records is a matter of national security.

Jon Berlau wrote about the onerous National Security Letters in December 2003, and Dave Weigel wrote in the November issue about the surprisingly popular politics of anti-PATRIOTism.

Comments

thoreau | November 18, 2005, 12:46pm | #

Since somebody will undoubtedly show up and insist that these powers won't be abused, I invite you to consider yesterday's thread about the person who was convicted and incarcerated for using a medication that wasn't even on the schedule of controlled substances.

Trusting them to not make mistakes is the biggest mistake of all.

joe | November 18, 2005, 12:54pm | #

Remember when the USA PATRIOT Act was a temporary measure, that we needed because of the extreme state of emergency that existed in the aftermath of September 11, and that even its supporters said weren't necessary in ordinary circumstances?

Why doesn't any of the opposition raise this point?

Supreme Chancellor Palpatine | November 18, 2005, 12:55pm | #

Look, I said I would give back my emergency powers when the war was over. Is terrorism dead yet? Well, is it? Huh? Don't make me use lightning on you.

thoreau | November 18, 2005, 1:08pm | #

Chancellor-

Does the Secret Service by any chance have orders to arrest any short green dudes with pointy ears who might be in DC?

Of course, under the Patriot Act you can simply refuse to answer that question and send me to a prison planet for even asking it.

mediageek | November 18, 2005, 1:11pm | #

I'd just like to offer up a preemptive strike before the first Republican shows up to blather on about this is just for evil turrerists and psycho crackheads by posting the following information from the advocacy group Gun Owners of America:

"Capitol Hill sources have told GOA there is a provision in this bill (amending Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act) which would allow the FBI to get a secret court order to seize ANY business records it believes would be relevant to an anti-terrorism investigation... without having to make the case that the gun records they're confiscating have any connection to a suspected terrorist.

Hence, in the name of fighting terrorism, the FBI will be given a license for unbridled fishing expeditions.

Gun sales are business transactions, and FFL holders must retain copies of the 4473 forms (yellow sheets) filled out on every gun sale. Thus, an anti-gun administration could easily determine that such records would be useful in the fight against terrorism, and demand them all."

...

"It gets worse. If the gun dealer, where you purchased firearms, is required to hand over your gun purchase records, he is BARRED from telling you about it under the PATRIOT Act."

GOA Alert

Viking Moose | November 18, 2005, 1:12pm | #

It's always funny watching Durbin, who voted for PATRIOT as a "reasonable compromise", and who was in favor of the post oklahoma city laws, get worried about "civil liberties".

this is the same jackass who tried pressuring austria into chagning it's democratically-elected government.

asshat.

he just happens to be going after a preferred outcome this time.

and even though i respect our governor for honestly working out when he goes jogging, i still think it looks as though he has a merkin on his head. so there.

norbizness | November 18, 2005, 1:24pm | #

I'd feel a lot better about the hidden provisions if the thing was just called The DICKCHEESE Act, so we could separate marketing from function.

Hakluyt | November 18, 2005, 1:36pm | #

joe,

Why doesn't any of the opposition raise this point?

They have and quite often too.


Supreme Chancellor Palpatine,

Can your face get any uglier? :)

Stretch | November 18, 2005, 1:37pm | #

I just don't get this administration. They seem to have a highly but curiously refined sense of justice, whereby they want to do awful things but they want to make sure those awful things are technically legal.

In both the PATRIOT act and the torture law, the government wants to reserve the right to do what it damn well pleases. But the truth is that they'll do those things anyway if they feel it's neccessary (even if it's not) to catch terrorists. For most practical applications, it's irrelevant whether these things are legal. By continually calling attention to certain, unsavory actions, they reduce the ability to conduct them secretly (they way they've always been done before).

Either they truly want to strip people of their rights, which would be extremely short-sighted even for this administration, or they so believe in their methods for combating terrorism that they want to put those methods on the level. I believe it to be the latter, which is just a strange way to conduct government.

I'm not sure whether I prefer a government that proclaims their nasty deeds in public or one that shuns them in public and conducts them in private.

Eric the .5b | November 18, 2005, 2:08pm | #

asshat.

he just happens to be going after a preferred outcome this time.

A small benefit of the doubt seems fair - even asshats can learn.

RandyAyn | November 18, 2005, 2:11pm | #

I don't get this. There is already in place a robust mechanism for judicial oversight of warrants sought in intelligence and criminal cases. Why does the FBI not even want to submit to that cursory process? What do they have to fear from judicial oversight? Will someone please explain to me why we have to gut the Fourth Amendment just so they don't have to go before a judge?

Viking Moose | November 18, 2005, 2:18pm | #

Hi Eric:

Durbin is a total asshole. he had this patronizing, holier than thou statement on the FPOe and Jorg haider - his staffers didn't even know that the FPOe had an english translation of its website to check some alleged statements. they (durbin et al) just ran with what the EU shithead supporters spread.

that's why he is and always be an asshat. and i will try to get him to become a productive, happy private citizen as soon as he's up for reelection.

Rick Barton | November 18, 2005, 2:50pm | #

Our liberty and that of our children may well depend on our taking action on this. Please contact your congressperson and senators and ask them to incorporate changes to Patriot to prevent even more excessive government intrusion in personal matters. If these changes are not made, the odds are large that the act will be used in the future to punish dissent. We're fighting tyranny here.

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

joe | November 18, 2005, 2:51pm | #

Viking, perhaps Durbin considers it legitimate to distinguish between temporary measures - as the bill was written whe he voted for it - and permanent measures, as the reauthorization would make them.

downstater | November 18, 2005, 3:19pm | #

Viking Moose,

Maybe the Illinois repubs can run Keyes here again? There's an alternative for ya!

Viking Moose | November 18, 2005, 3:30pm | #

downstater:

ha ha. jerry kohn, the LP candidate, wasn't any better. how the GOP of illinois allowed that part time circus freak keyes to run here is a mystery. judy barr t. sure showed the limits of her power :)

i like oberweis or dan rutherford better. but the GOP of illinois sure showed what it's made of with that candidate. and ryan? heh. what a fucking tool. the best move a GOPer in illinois did was to suspend the death penalty, as the state has proven itself incomepent to do other, less important services. they certainly are not qualified to determine if someone should be put to death.

Joe:

i don't buy that "temporary measure" excuse. he voted to give the prez authority to go to war. he voted for this. i also don't buy that temporary excuse, as the first point of government agencies is to secure further funding. remember the lies about reagan? the departments of energy and education are still around. nato is still around. i simply don't buy into the knee jerk "let's do something". whether it's going to war, whether it's authorizing PATRIOT, or whether it's some misunderstood reaction against austria for following a democratic process. he is in favor of standardized biometric drivers permits, but they shouldn't be considered a national ID card. sure. the man is the typical asshole who is all for stuff when it's his side, but pretends he has some sort of principled or ethical reason when it's against him.

he gets no slack on that stuff, since he's one of the jerkoffs who got us in this mess.

Randolph Carter | November 18, 2005, 5:08pm | #

Was Jerry Kohn a joke name?

James Anderson Merritt | November 19, 2005, 1:47pm | #

Is there any hope that, before the next election, we can get every Senator and Congressman to say whether or not he or she actually read the entire PATRIOT Act before voting on it? Whether he or she has actually seen personally convincing evidence since the Act passed that it is, indeed, helping our situation? Can we then agree to defeat any such official who didn't read the act in the first place, has seen no personally convincing evidence since then in the second place, and yet votes in favor of PATRIOT Act extension and enlargement in the third place?

Maybe none of them will talk, but if they refuse to answer, let's can 'em anyway. If they lie, I can only hope that some of them will be caught in the lie.

Viking Moose | November 19, 2005, 2:16pm | #

"Maybe none of them will talk, but if they refuse to answer, let's can 'em anyway. If they lie, I can only hope that some of them will be caught in the lie."

what would that do? those who would defend their guys would find some bullshit excuse to let the lie go. after all, even if temporary, it was for the safety dammit. :)

still, kudos to Russ F. for voting, "nay". good job.

joe | November 19, 2005, 4:32pm | #

JAM,

The complete version of the USA PATRIOT Act had not yet been printed when the Republican leadership brought if up for a vote on the floor of the House.

No kidding.

VIking Moose | November 19, 2005, 5:21pm | #

"Viking, perhaps Durbin considers it legitimate to distinguish between temporary measures - as the bill was written whe he voted for it - and permanent measures, as the reauthorization would make them."

but DICK durbin apparently didn't read the bill, so he must have had no way of knowing what was temporary.

still that said, i think we stand pretty much side by side in hating the policies that the prez has made with the authorities he's been given. TORTURE IS WRONG.