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.

[af_vet_rr]

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?

Imagine what Janet Reno might have done if she had these powers. I am more worried about democrats having these tools, than us not having them, perio.d

[DLfromthedesert]

You nailed it. Americans should NOT have to give up basic freedoms to accommodate illegals.

[Ancesthntr]

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?

Imagine what Janet Reno might have done if she had these powers. I am more worried about democrats having these tools, than us not having them, perio.d

Or we can imagine what President Hillary will tell Atty. General Chuck the Schmuck Schumer to do to the NRA - i.e. to designate it as a "terrorist organization" after one of its members goes nuts and kills a few dozen people (a drugged-up or paid-off pseudo member, that is). Then 4 million + gunowners will be instantly denied almost all of their rights, followed quickly by either a civil war or similar treatment for other political opponents. Have the lovers of freedom learned nothing from the Reichstag Fire?

I don't think that Bush & Co. will abuse the Patriot Act too much (though its already being done) - I worry about the people with less honest and honorable intentions, and a decided hunger for power who will come after Bush. Heck, it doesn't have to be Hillary, it could be some unknown who's now 16 who gets elected President in 2032. The fault lies not with those proposing the Patriot Act's successor, but in the legislation itself. It is a potential tool of tyranny, and any student of history knows that any tool that has ever been invented has, at least once, been used. This world has had more than enough examples of tyranny for me to state that we don't need more of it, especially here.

[NJ_gent]

"Do I understand correctly? The legislation would allow law-enforcement to write and enforce their own subpoenas with no judicial involvement?"

Well, National Security letters already allow the Feds to force businesses to secretly divulge every bit of information they have about you without your permission or knowledge. In terms of warrants, the burden of proof in cases where a government agent claims there's a terrorism connection is so low that courts are reduced almost to rubber stamp courts. Take a look at FISA and National Security Letters on google for some very frightening information. Check out 'sneak and peek' for more frightening information. How's this for thinking: while you're at work today, agents of the government can legally enter your home, search your house, place 'bugging' devices on your computer, and photograph everything in sight without having to say a word to you. All that has to happen is someone tells a judge you're a terrorist, are involved with terrorists, or once sent money to a group that we think might be giving aid to terrorists. Think about that one when you walk in the door tonight. I certainly do. Proponents of these laws like to claim that none of this could really happen, that it's not legal, and that folks like me are simply being paranoid. What they cannot do is point out where in the law it says they can't do it, whereas I can point to the parts of the law that say they can. Their claims of this being unrealistic and overblown are tantamount to "trust us".

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

That's just it - in many cases, they don't even have to knock.

[boxsmith13]

"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."

Something like 60%+ of the public supports the Patriot Act. It is only the kooks accross the spectrum from left to right who oppose it. You cant say that the ACLU opposes it and ACU opposes it, therefore everyone in between opposes it.

[snopercod]

Thanks for cheering me up </sarcasm>

Seriously, you are an asset to FR.

I live in a rural area where everybody pretty much knows everybody else, and you can walk in and talk to the Sheriff, Magistrate Judges, or owner of the local paper any time you want to.

Nobody can "sneak and peek" into any of our neighbors' homes without us hearing the dogs bark or noting the make and model of the vehicle which passed by. Well, it would be difficult, anyway...

This is more of a city-folks concern, I think. (But I'm still 'agin it.)

[NJ_gent]

"Something like 60%+ of the public supports the Patriot Act."

Rather incredible statistic considering the number of towns, cities, and states who've passed resolutions condemning it.

"It is only the kooks accross the spectrum from left to right who oppose it."

That's the first time I've ever heard David Keene called a 'kook' on here. His take on the PATRIOT ACT is becoming surprisingly harsh, considering his support for President Bush and his longstanding friendship with AG Ashcroft.

[CWOJackson]

"A group of libertarian-minded..."

You mean like Ron Paul who voted no along with 49 Democrats on a resolution to support our troops.

Or like Ron Paul who thinks it's is equally as important to punish the guard and the people (the President and Rumsfeld) who put them in Iraq.

[NJ_gent]

"I live in a rural area where everybody pretty much knows everybody else"

I live in a fairly suburban spot, where everyone is of working age (and is thankfully employed). There's no one home during the day who would see people stopped at my house, breaking in and searching/planting bugs/taking pictures/etc.

"Nobody can "sneak and peek" into any of our neighbors' homes without us hearing the dogs bark or noting the make and model of the vehicle which passed by."

But what good does that do you? "Hey, John, I think I saw someone poking around your house yesterday while you were at work". And so what if you get the tags - the police certainly can't do anything about it, nor can they tell you anything about it. The biggest problem with this whole situation is the fact that it's perfectly legal under current law for this to happen. I'm not concerned with what agents of the government can do so much as I'm concerned with what they can do legally. No agent of the government should be allowed by law to simply wander through my home without me ever even knowing.

[Travis McGee]

Yep, just imagine President Kerry or Clinton and AG Schumer turning this against the NRA or the GOA as "terrorist supporting organizations."

[snopercod]

Actually, there are many times when I have seen a car in the neighborhood that doesn't belong here. I usually follow and (politely) confront the driver (properly prepared, of course).

Let's face it. Terrorism is an urban problem. We country folks can take care of ourselves.

[AmericanChef]

-"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."-

In a fight for survival, shouldn't we consider those things that increase our chances to survive? I despise big government, but security is one of the few things I think government should handle. They don't handle it well because they've got too much on their plate (and too many of my precious tax dollars to dine on). Take away all the social-cultural issues, and there might be focus.

[steve-b]

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.

Oh, really, dahling, think of what we'd have to pay the landscaper and the babysitter if people took the immigration laws seriously. Pass the caviar....

[af_vet_rr]

Or we can imagine what President Hillary will tell Atty. General Chuck the Schmuck Schumer to do to the NRA - i.e. to designate it as a "terrorist organization" after one of its members goes nuts and kills a few dozen people (a drugged-up or paid-off pseudo member, that is). Then 4 million + gunowners will be instantly denied almost all of their rights, followed quickly by either a civil war or similar treatment for other political opponents. Have the lovers of freedom learned nothing from the Reichstag Fire?

It wouldn't be just the NRA. Liberals are always eyeing the net, wanting to impose more government regulation, oversight, monitoring, etc. (all in the name of protecting the children, women, minorities, etc.). I could see sites like FR being banned or heavily monitored (after all, one of the largest sites on the internet dedicated to a distrust of the government as well as a large membership of firearm owners).

The fault lies not with those proposing the Patriot Act's successor, but in the legislation itself. It is a potential tool of tyranny, and any student of history knows that any tool that has ever been invented has, at least once, been used. This world has had more than enough examples of tyranny for me to state that we don't need more of it, especially here.

Unfortunately, way too many people are scared of the big bad world and want the government to protect using them any means necessary. They don't get it - eventually somebody will come along that will use those tools against the subjects, err citizens. Like you said, history is fully of this. Unfortunately, most don't look past the last 10 years or so.

[NJ_gent]

"Let's face it. Terrorism is an urban problem. We country folks can take care of ourselves."

Surely you've seen what goes on in the outlying Israeli settlements. Those are pretty rural, yet they come under attack all the time. Those folks expect attacks and prepare themselves, yet when the time comes, they still lose people. Terrorism is everyone's problem, mainly because terrorists don't discriminate when it comes to who they're killing.

[NJ_gent]

"In a fight for survival, shouldn't we consider those things that increase our chances to survive?"

In a fight for survival, we should consider anything that increases our chances of success without fundamentally changing who we are. If our only goal was survival, the most obvious way of doing this would be to surrender to Osama and beg for mercy. I'm sure that if we instituted Sharia law and made him absolute ruler, he'd spare the vast majority of us from death.

Survival is insufficient. We are a proud nation that has accomplished much in our short history thanks largely to our way of life. Turning this country into a police state to survive is no better than surrendering to Osama. Either we're going to win this fight by sticking to our principles and facing down the potential for death with courage and defiance, or we're going to fold - either to a police state, or to Osama. To be honest, I view them both with the same level of contempt.

" I despise big government, but security is one of the few things I think government should handle."

Security against foreign powers is most definitely one of the jobs of the Federal government. We also have the Border Patrol and Coast Guard. In addition to that, on the state level, we have state police and National Guard. What I've proposed all along was to increase the funding and responsibility of the Coast Guard and Border Patrol, give both lots and lots more people to work with (I'm talking 1,000% increase in manpower or more), and to transfer some of our existing peacekeepers away from UN control and into the National Guard of border states to help police the borders and ports. I'm not saying the government shouldn't have troops, or shouldn't have police - what I'm referring to is the people who want the government to be able to track every bit of information about every citizen that possibly can be tracked. I'm talking about the Total Information Awareness supporters, the CAPPS and CAPPS II supporters, the PATRIOT ACT supporters, and those who would support similarly bad ideas. Giving the government more control over the borders is great. Giving the government more control over us is not.

[snopercod]

Terrorism is everyone's problem, mainly because terrorists don't discriminate when it comes to who they're killing.

I agree that it's all our problem, but terrorists are like the little dweebs who spread computer viruses - they concentrate on Microsoft operating systems because that's where the people are.

Do you think they terrorists would get any coverage if they blew up the Stop 'N Go down at podunk corner? No, they want to kill a lot of people, so they go where there a lot of people - e.g. the big cities.

And of course out here in the country, many folks have loaded shotguns in their living rooms, handguns in their vehicles, etc. It's a little more dangerous out here for those who would harm our neighbors, yaknowwhatImeanVern?

[NJ_gent]

"Do you think they terrorists would get any coverage if they blew up the Stop 'N Go down at podunk corner? No, they want to kill a lot of people, so they go where there a lot of people - e.g. the big cities."

It's certainly true that a small town in the middle of Idaho isn't going to be on OBL's Top 100 to-strike list, but that may be just the sort of thing that would scare us all the most. Blowing up one Stop 'N Go would get a small amount of mostly-local attention. Blowing up 5 would get regional attention. Blowing up 10 would garner international spotlight and would have an incredible impact on how people live their daily lives.

Remember the sniper shootings in DC? How many people died in those - 10 or so? Yet people were absolutely terrified. I have family in the area, and I can tell you first-hand that children were begging and pleading with parents not to go to work, scared they'd never come home. People were ducking at the gas stations, people were driving way out of the area to avoid being a potential target, and were doing just about anything you could think of to avoid becoming the next victim. Those shootings created an all-consuming envelope of fear in the entire region... with about 10 deaths. It's not about how many people die - it's about the basic things we all take for granted no longer being there. Something as simple as a power outtage can spark looting and riots in the streets. If something happens to bring the purity of the water supply into question, good luck finding bottled water in the area. It's when the little things stop functioning that our societal order begins to break down. That, again, makes it everyone's problem. A shopping mall in Smithville, Arkansas (generic small-town name) can be blown up just as easily as Tyson's Corner Mall in Virginia.

[jmc813]

You mean like Ron Paul who voted no along with 49 Democrats on a resolution to support our troops.

Did your wife cheat on you with Ron Paul or something? This is something like the fourth thread I've been reading today where you show up and bash Paul. Jesus Christ...

[First_Salute]

Posted to Free Republic by farmer18th, October 27, 1999

An oldie but a goodie ---

October 3, 1765

The Pennsylvania Gazette

HARTFORD, September 23.

Last Wednesday afternoon, a large company of able bodied men came to town (on horseback) from the eastern parts of this government, and informed those who were willing to join them, that they were on their way to New Haven, to demand of the stamp officer of this colony to resign his office, that a number of their companions, were gone on the lower roads, and that they had all agreed to rendezvous at Branford, the next day (Thursday) and that they should tarry in town that night; they then dispersed to different parts of the town for lodging.

In the evening, advice was received, that Mr. Ingersoll was on the road to this place, that he would be in town the next day, and that he intended to apply to the assembly for their protection; and it being conjectured, that he might come to town in the night, to shun the mob (who he had heard were on their way to pay him a visit) it was agreed that a watch should patrol the streets all night, to prevent his coming in unnoticed, but they made no discoveries.

On Thursday morning, the whole body, including a considerable number from this town, set off, on their intended expedition, and in about an hour met Mr. Ingersoll, at the lower end of Weathersfield, and let him know their business; he at first refused to comply, but it was insisted upon, that he should resign his office of stamp master, so disagreeable to his countrymen; after many proposals, he delivered the resignation mentioned below, which he read himself in the hearing of the whole company; he was then desired to pronounce the words, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY, three times, which having done, the whole body gave three huzzas; Mr. Ingersoll then went into a tavern, and dined with several of the company.

After dinner the company told Mr. Ingersoll, as he was bound to Hartford, they would escort him there, which they did, to the number of almost 500 persons on horseback. After they arrived in town, Mr. Ingersoll again read his resignation in public, when three huzzas more were given, and the whole company immediately dispersed without making the least disturbance.