Presidential push fails to quell GOP fear of Patriot Act

the hill.com ^ | 5 12 04 | Alexander Bolton

[freepatriot32]

A group of libertarian-minded Republicans in Congress is blocking President Bush’s effort to strengthen domestic counterterrorism laws and reauthorize the USA Patriot Act, which the president has made one of his top domestic priorities this year.

As a result of this opposition, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was forced last week to cancel panel consideration of legislation that would have given law-enforcement officials more tools to pursue suspected terrorists.

As other administration policy initiatives — such as a manned mission to Mars — have languished in Congress, Bush has emphasized the importance of renewing the Patriot Act this year, even though provisions of the law don’t expire until the end of next year.

Late last month, Bush launched a national tour to press Congress to reauthorize the controversial law immediately. Many Democrats and some conservatives have criticized the law as overly broad and intrusive.

Jeff Lungren, a spokesman for the Judiciary Committee, said work on the Sensenbrenner bill was canceled last week because committee Democrats had demanded more time to examine it. Lungren emphasized that it was not related to the Patriot Act.

But a group of lawmakers, including some Republicans, saw it differently.

One GOP lawmaker on the panel — who asked to remain anonymous to avoid angering the chairman — said Republicans had also objected to the legislation. The lawmaker added that Sensenbrenner had informed his GOP colleagues the panel would consider the measure shortly before the scheduled markup.

Sensenbrenner declined to answer questions on the subject.

Among other powers, the legislation would have given law-enforcement officials the power to compel compliance with administrative subpoenas, one of the most controversial elements of the Patriot Act that a sizeable group of Republicans on the Hill are trying to abolish. Administrative subpoenas may be issued by law- enforcement agencies without the approval of a court.

The legislation would also have closed a gap in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by defining noncitizens who engage in terrorist activities but are not affiliated with an international terrorist group as agents of a foreign power and made it easier to withhold classified information from criminal defendants.

Last week’s minirebellion is symptomatic of broader opposition among Republicans in the House and Senate to provisions of the Patriot Act that the administration has deemed essential to its battle against terrorism.

Fifty-eight lawmakers, including six Republicans, have co-sponsored legislation sponsored by Rep. Butch Otter (R-Idaho) in the House that would rein in aspects of the Patriot Act.

In the Senate, four Republicans have joined 12 Democrats in co-sponsoring similar legislation introduced by Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), a former head of the Republican Policy Committee and a close friend of Attorney General John Ashcroft. Craig and Ashcroft had dinner together two weeks ago, but they did not discuss their clashing views on the Patriot Act.

The Craig legislation would place greater restrictions on roving wire taps, require law-enforcement officials to notify the targets of “sneak and peek” searches within seven days after a search, restrict the use of nationwide search warrants and amend the section of the Patriot Act that allow for secret searches of library and bookstore records.

Both Otter and Craig emphasized in interviews that they don’t oppose the Patriot Act — they just want to eliminate the excesses that could some day be abused by investigators and prosecutors.

But the administration has made clear to them that it opposes the modifying legislation and argues that, if anything, the Patriot Act needs to be augmented.

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), one of the co-sponsors of the Senate bill, said the administration has privately threatened to veto a bill curbing Patriot Act-expanded law-enforcement powers.

Otter said there is likely more support among Republicans for modifying the Patriot Act than is apparent from the list of colleagues co-sponsoring his legislation.

Otter noted that he had fewer co-sponsors for an amendment he offered last year to the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill that would have prohibited the Justice Department from spending money to conduct “sneak and peek” searches. The amendment passed with 309 votes, including 113 from the GOP side of the aisle, but was later pulled from the omnibus appropriations bill by Republican leaders and White House negotiators.

“I think if you take a look at most of those 309 votes, I would say the majority of those and maybe more will surface when the time comes,” said Otter, who acknowledged that the best chance to curb the Patriot Act would arise during a House vote on reauthorization of the act.

Otter also noted that 167 members of the House voted against last year’s intelligence authorization bill after discovering that it expanded the Patriot Act by expanding the types financial institutions — including pawn shops and used-car dealerships — that must surrender records to law-enforcement agents without court-approved subpoenas.

He said that colleagues informed him it was the first time more than 35 lawmakers voted against the intelligence bill.

Perhaps because of broad GOP opposition to key elements of the Patriot Act, Sensenbrenner has made it clear to colleagues that he will not consider reauthorization of the bill until next year.

But by then, Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), a centrist, will have become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee if he wins his re-election race and conservatives do not attempt to block Specter’s appointment. If Specter gets the gavel, it would be more difficult for the administration to reauthorize the Patriot Act without significant changes. Specter is one of four Republicans co-sponsoring Craig’s bill seeking to rein in law enforcement powers.

Specter declined to state his position on the Patriot Act, saying it required a sit-down interview to elaborate.

[freepatriot32]

A group of libertarian-minded Republicans

oh thier just doing this so they can smoke weed and look at child porn while haveing sex with a hooker /sarcasm

[RightthinkinAmerican]

Some of the same people who want to point fingers that we didn't know about 9/11 in time to stop it, but they would tie the government's hands in perventing the next one. Then the finger pointing will resume - "Why didn't you prevent this!".

[NJ_gent]

I'm really at a loss for why he's fighting everyone from the left to the right to push these types of things. Everyone from the ACLU to the American Conservative Union says that much of what's in the PATRIOT ACT goes against everything this country stands for, yet the President continues to push for even further sweeping changes. It seems to me that when something you do unites people across the political spectrum against you, it's time to try something else instead.

Suggestion #1: Secure our borders and ports.

[horatio]

Agreed. On those rare occassions when the right and left agree, we should take notice.

The Patriot Act is a good idea, but it goes too far. We must not surrender our essential liberty in order to gain a little security.

[hchutch]

One of the biggest causes of 9/11 was the stuff that happened in the wake of the Church Committee hearings. The restrictions and decimation of HUMINT. The Gorelick memos that built up a "wall" between law enforcement and intelligence.

Torricelli's leak in 1995, which caused not just new restrictions, but also caused agents to stop cooperating.

We tied CIA's hands behind its back, and we now wonder why they didn't warn us. We can't have it both ways.

[Servant of the 9]

If the administration would accept limitations in the law forbidding any of these powers from being used for anything but counterterrorism, he could get it past.

Ashcroft lied about how he would use the Patriot Act by using it's powers for other crimes. He cannot be trusted not to do it again. Any future Democratic administration certainly can't be trusted. Anyone want to guess how Jamie Gorelick would use these powers domestically if she was Atty. General?

So9

[NJ_gent]

"The restrictions and decimation of HUMINT."

Agreed, but much of this was due to a much higher reliance on SIGINT, as opposed to simply giving up on intelligence gathering altogether. The CIA needs to hire more people to get more feet on the ground - no doubt about that. Where there is some question is how involved the CIA should be domestically. We certainly don't want the KGB running around the US, nor do we want to gag our counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism forces. There are definitely some difficult questions to ask in that area in terms of who should be allowed to do what, between the CIA and the FBI. I'm of the opinion that the FBI should remain our primary counter-terrorism force domestically, as they have the most experience operating domestically. Obviously, there are changes to be made in methods and procedures.

"Torricelli's leak in 1995, which caused not just new restrictions, but also caused agents to stop cooperating."

This entire culture of "my case is my turf" has worked largely against us. We need to break this down and start getting people within the FBI and law enforcement to talk to one another. Again, when you bring the intelligence community into the picture, it adds a lot of questions; questions I'm not going to get into at the moment because we could spend all day talking about 1/10th of them.

"We tied CIA's hands behind its back, and we now wonder why they didn't warn us."

The CIA wasn't the only one handicapped. Look at what the FBI has to deal with - even today. Do we know how many people have come into this country in the past year? Do we know who crossed the Mexican border last night? Do we have the slightest clue when 90% of current visa holders are? Our immigration system is a patchwork destined for failure. Our border controls are a joke. Osama could, literally, be walking around on US soil right now. Seriously, if he crossed over from Mexico, how would we know? The FBI has had, and continues having, to deal with an unknown number of unknown foreigners who may or may not have malicious intent roaming freely throughout the US. That, combined with the FBI's culture of 'my case, my turf' makes for very dangerous situations.

What I don't think we need are more draconian laws, more controls over our citizens, or more police surveillance and tracking. Terrorists used banks last time because they were convenient. Next time, they could just as easily ride in from south of the border on donkeys loaded with wads of cash. Pouring over my bank account isn't going to prevent a terrorist attack. Controlling our borders, though, goes a long way to keeping us safe. As a reminder to just how bad off our immigration system is, don't forget that several 9/11 hijackers received visas after the suicide attacks. We have no idea who's coming into this country, and until we do, all the laws in the world won't help us.

[AmericanChef]

Freedom is fine, but what if a tougher Patriot Act saves more lives than it might hurt? I'd like to have a future to enjoy my freedom in. There's no place on earth that exercises REAL freedom, anyway - I'm sure there's a law somewhere against eating a peanut butter sandwich on the sidewalk somewhere in the U.S.

'Course, I wouldn't trust Dems with Patriot. Or Libertarians, for that matter. Too much in common there. They're both loyal to a country that doesn't exist.

[NJ_gent]

"what if a tougher Patriot Act saves more lives than it might hurt? I'd like to have a future to enjoy my freedom in."

The future you describe is devoid of freedom. Let me ask you this: what good is life if you're not allowed to live? When in doubt, consult the New Hampshire state motto.

"There's no place on earth that exercises REAL freedom, anyway - I'm sure there's a law somewhere against eating a peanut butter sandwich on the sidewalk somewhere in the U.S."

The US Constitution is a statement of ideals - something towards which to work. Just because we haven't reached the ideal state of liberty doesn't mean we ought to stop trying. The goals it sets forth are more than worth of our time, energy, and lives for a thousand years and more.

"'Course, I wouldn't trust Dems with Patriot. Or Libertarians, for that matter. Too much in common there. They're both loyal to a country that doesn't exist."

Libertarians simply believe in freedom for all, regardless of the consequences. Dems... don't seem to have any coherent beliefs at the moment, but some of them do seem to be coming around on the traditionally conservative tenet of getting government off our backs. I'm still at a loss for how it is that so many people calling themselves conservatives (not meant to be a personal attack on you, but rather a general comment) are pro- big government, pro- police state tactics, and pro- nearly absolute executive authority since 9/11. If the beliefs held by conservatives were truly so flaky as to be blown away in a single attack on this country, then perhaps they were no more than passing whims to begin with.

Oh well, at least the ACU is still pushing for what I've always considered to be 'conservative' values.

[freepatriot32]

ping

[some guy in the mountains]

Some of the best news I've heard all day!

I am very much against the Patriot Act. I wasn't at first, but then I read it, and read what it changes in the law, and I compared it to the Bill of Rights. Bad stuff.

[some guy in the mountains]

The US Constitution is a statement of ideals - something towards which to work.

What?! The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Nothing is above it other than force of the people. Calling it a "statement of ideals" and "something towards which to work" diminishes it to some creed that would be a good idea to follow if we can or if circumstances allow, not as the ruling set of laws in our country.

[Dan from Michigan]

The Patriot Act needs to be dead and buried ASAP. It was unacceptable then, and is now.

[paleocon patriarch]

Americans see that the underfunded Department of Homeland Security and the "Patriot Act" have resulted in unprecidented numbers of illegal aliens pouring unchecked over our borders.

You can tap our phones AFTER you mine the borders!

[MSCASEY]

'Course, I wouldn't trust Dems with Patriot. Or Libertarians, for that matter. Too much in common there. They're both loyal to a country that doesn't exist.

Are you talking about the soon to be The Americas as the New EU that is being set up under the FTAA with the UN ruling it?

MCD

[NJ_gent]

"What?! The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Nothing is above it other than force of the people. Calling it a "statement of ideals" and "something towards which to work" diminishes it to some creed that would be a good idea to follow if we can or if circumstances allow, not as the ruling set of laws in our country."

While there are some practical parts of the Constitution, there are plenty of parts which are merely vague ideas. Look at the Bill of Rights, for example. I agree that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and you'll find that I'm all for strict adherrence to it. That being said, we've never managed to live up fully to the standards set by the Constitution. We have Americans sitting in jail without a chance to argue their innocence. We have states' rights... well, we actually don't have states' right at the moment. We certainly have plenty of censorship and gun control, plenty of unreasonable searchs, and plenty of other areas in which we fail to meet Constitutional standards.

My point is that the Constitution sets high standards in its idealistic vision for this country. From day 1, we've not met all those standards, and in our ever-changing world, it's becoming more and more complicated to meet them. There has never been a time when we've had absolute adherrence to the Constitution, and I believe that's because much of what it tells us to do is contrary to human nature. How many here have called for charges of treason and censorship when someone says something we don't want to hear? We should always follow our Constitution, but attainment of the idealistic state proposed within its pages could very well be a neverending struggle. I, for one, welcome that struggle.

As far as it being "a good idea to follow if we can or if circumstances allow", how else would you describe modern society? Do we not have two US citizens in prison without knowing the charges for which they're being held? Do we not have massive Federal programs without an ounce of Constitutional support? How much of our current system of government is perfectly Constitutional, would you say? Half? 10%? Less? How many people here a part of the choir calling for blatantly unconstitutional measures to be taken in order to 'protect' us all from terrorism? How many here call for the wholesale slaughter of anyone who appears arab or Muslim? If there's one thing humans are generally good at, it's taking actions that are most convenient.

[jmc813]

Very good post. I notice you are relatively new to FR. Welcome aboard from a fellow Jersey guy.

[ThinkDifferent]

One of the biggest causes of 9/11 was the stuff that happened in the wake of the Church Committee hearings. The restrictions and decimation of HUMINT. The Gorelick memos that built up a "wall" between law enforcement and intelligence.

Agreed, and the Patriot Act isn't necessary to correct any of those problems.

[snopercod]

the legislation would have given law-enforcement officials the power to compel compliance with administrative subpoenas

Do I understand correctly? The legislation would allow law-enforcement to write and enforce their own subpoenas with no judicial involvement? The U.S. Constitution specifically requires judicial approval of warrents, but I don't believe it mentions subpoenas.

Aren't subpoenas - by definition - judical calls to appear? If so, then we are transferring judicial powers to law enforcement here.

This sounds a lot like a knock at the door at 3AM.