Patriot Act Politics

Yeah, I know it's an article from the Boston Globe. But it contains relevant information.

The Patriot Act appears to be getting closer to renewal. The debate has been crashing about on amendments to restrict some of the provisions and vary sunset dates on others. I'm glad to see that some of these provisions are still locked into sunset clauses.

Sixteen of the act's most sensitive provisions were given four-year life spans, however, and yesterday marked the first time that either the House or the Senate debated extending those provisions. The Bush administration has lobbied extensively for making all of the act's provisions permanent.

But since 2001, the law has come under criticism from liberals as well as conservatives for giving federal authorities increased powers without adequate safeguards on civil liberties. Two provisions have proved particularly controversial: the power for a secret court to authorize access to library and other personal records, and the ''roving" wiretaps that allow snooping on a range of communications devices used by a suspect.

I keep hearing that the "library" provision isn't a problem because it's never been used. God, am I tired of that argument. Availability doesn't negate the ability for use. Personally, I don't even see any issue with using that provision as long as it is clearly bounded by the court issuing the subpoena. No fishing trips should be allowed.

The GOP-controlled House Rules Committee refused to allow votes on a series of Democratic amendments that would have imposed shorter time limits on the controversial provisions.

The committee also shut down an amendment that would severely limit access to library records.

A similar amendment passed the House a month ago but is considered unlikely to become law because the Senate version of the same bill did not include that provision. Representative Bernard Sanders, the Vermont Independent who offered the amendment, blasted Republicans for ducking a move that the Bush administration opposes.

''It is unconscionable that the same Republican leadership that is asking us to trust them not to abuse the powers granted by the Patriot Act has so blatantly abused their power to undermine the democratic process in Congress," Sanders said.

I always love this argument. Congress is controlled by a majority, and that majority uses the rules of that body to limit or stop amendments that it dislikes. This is then termed "abuse of power" by those who don't get their way. They used the democratic process, not abused it. Sounds like the logic of a four year old. "It's not fair!"

Of course, the stupidity isn't limited to the left. Frist opened his mouth and as usual made an ass of himself.

''With this vote, all members, from both sides of the aisle, will have an opportunity to show the American people how seriously they take the ongoing threat of terrorism and how they intend to combat it," said House majority leader Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas.

Politics at its finest. Yes, Bill it will show the public just how willing they are to fight terrorism and to what level you are willing to go to restrict civil liberties. Thank you Mr. Frist for again affirming what a complete jack-ass you really are.

But why am I not surprised when a Democrat pulls similar tactics.

But some Democrats accused Republicans of seeking to inject politics into an issue where most House members agree on the broad outlines. GOP leaders could have drafted a measure that would have drawn unanimous support and included most of the Patriot Act provisions, but instead chose to include items they knew many Democrats would oppose, said Representative Michael E. Capuano, a Somerville Democrat.

''It's an intentional attempt to drive a wedge here," Capuano said.

''There's plenty of room to make agreements . . . But they don't want people like me to vote for it. The whole approach is totally political."

Yes, its only about politics Mike. None of the debating congressmen are trying to ensure that useful and effective legislation comes out at the end. The provisions were only included to irritate democrats. Thank you for confirming that you to are a jack-ass.

The House Resolution #3199 can be viewed at the link. I'm a bit irritated that, to my understanding, amendment #54 wasn't allowed. I'm very reticent on secrecy, and even more so on gag orders.

5. Flake/Delahunt/Otter/Nadler #54
Specifies that the recipient of a national security letter may consult with an attorney, and may also challenge national security letters in court. Authorizes a judge to throw out the national security letter request by the government “if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive” to the recipient of the national security letter. Allows the recipient to challenge the non-disclosure requirement (gag order) of the national security letter request. Permits a court to modify or remove the non-disclosure requirement of the national security letter request “if it finds that there is no reason to believe that disclosure may endanger the national security of the United States, interfere with a criminal, counterterrorism, or counterintelligence investigation, interfere with diplomatic relations, or endanger the life or physical safety of any person.” Modifies the non-disclosure requirement so that recipients may tell individuals whom they work with about the national security letter request in order to comply with the national security request. Contains penalties for individuals who violate the non-disclosure requirements of a national security letter. Requires that reports on national security letters by federal agencies to Congress must also be sent to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. [emphasis mine]

I find this completely reasonable. I fail to see any argument that can justify negating one's right to detail to one's own lawyer information related to these "National Security Letters." The use of which can be used to stop individuals from telling their legal representation that they have been served with search warrants or other actions of the government. No one will ever be able to take action on such a case when abuse occurs, because you can't tell anyone. Nice pocket logic there. That is secrecy that treads very close if not completely into tyranny.

The Senate version is better:

(d) Prohibition on Disclosure- Section 501(d) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861(d)) is amended to read as follows:

`(d)(1) No person shall disclose to any other person that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things pursuant to an order under this section other than to--

`(A) those persons to whom such disclosure is necessary to comply with such order;

`(B) an attorney to obtain legal advice or assistance with respect to the production of things in response to the order; or

`(C) other persons as permitted by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the designee of the Director.

`(2)(A) Any person having received a disclosure under subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1) shall be subject to the prohibitions on disclosure under that paragraph. [emphasis mine]

Now look at #12. I'm not certain what the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act has to do with the Patriot Act. Seeing this type of amendment really torques me.

Then there is the Narco-terrorism amendment (#11 Hyde). Now we're pushing things to ridiculous. There are laws for illegal drugs, there is no reason to tag them into the penalties related to terrorism.

You can see the rest yourself.

And if you're really in need of sleep, here is the Senate version.