Posted on 12/16/2005 2:58:23 PM PST by smoothsailing
December 16, 2005, 5:19 p.m.
Sununu's Folly
If New Hampshire Republican Senator John Sununu wants to endanger our national security, shouldn't he at least know what he's talking about? Apparently that's too much to ask of the usually admirable senator, who is helping filibuster the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Even former Clinton Attorney General Janet Reno has endorsed the Patriot Act; it is the single most important piece of counterterrorism legislation passed post-9/11.
If the status quo holds after Friday's failure to invoke cloture Republicans got only 52 votes when they need 60 -the 16 provisions of the law that were sun-setted and that are the most important will lapse at the end of the year.
Sununu's criticism of the reauthorization, set out in a Union Leader op-ed earlier this week, are wrongheaded and empty.
Sununu says the Patriot Act is at odds with our country's convictions that "evidence must be shown to obtain a search warrant; we have a right to face an accuser; and when wrongly prosecuted, we can appeal our case to court." Not true. The Patriot Act does nothing to change those assumptions of our legal system. The government cannot get a search warrant without showing a judge probable cause either that a crime has been committed or that the subject of the warrant is an agent of a foreign power (such as a terrorist organization).
When people are accused or wrongfully convicted, they fully maintain their rights to confrontation and appeal; but those rights come into play only after a person has been formally accused. They have always been irrelevant while the government is conducting an investigation, even of an ordinary crime. Why should things be any different in the case of a threat to national security, which is what the Patriot Act covers?
Sununu then hones in on the favorite targets of Patriot opponents: Section 215, the so-called "library records" provision, which actually doesn't mention libraries and allows the government access to a wide variety of business records and other evidence; and national-security letters (NSLs), which allow the FBI to compel information "without the approval of a judge," Sununu darkly observes.
He neglects to note that federal prosecutors have for decades been fully empowered, in investigations of run-of-the-mill crimes like gambling and minor frauds, to issue grand-jury subpoenas, which can compel all the same evidence with absolutely no court supervision. There was no widespread abuse of these tactics prior to Patriot, just as there is no record of their being abused in the four years since Patriot sensibly extended them to national-security investigations.
Sununu claims that his problem with Section 215 and NSLs is that they can't be appealed and that recipients of government requests for information are subjected to "gag orders." That claim is misleading. The Justice Department has long taken the position that Section 215 orders can be appealed.
The proposed Patriot Act reauthorization not only formally creates a judicial-review process allowing a judge to modify or set aside flawed Section 215 orders or NSLs, but adds other protections as well: It loosens the nondisclosure requirements to facilitate court challenges; calls for "minimization procedures" that will limit the government's ability to retain and disseminate the intelligence collected; and provides for monitoring by an inspector general to make certain the authorities are being used properly.
On the basis of these misunderstandings, Sununu stands with Democrats blocking an up-or-down vote on the reauthorization. If Sununu and his Republican colleagues Larry Craig, Lisa Murkowski, and Chuck Hagel weren't giving Democrats cover, the Democrats probably wouldn't be able to maintain their near-unanimity on this politically perilous vote. What a shame.
http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200512161719.asp
LOL! Carry on!
I appreciate your normal amount of courtesy and respect you always demonstrate when discussing an issue, which is none.
Over the years, I've learned to give any opinion of yours the same amount of respect.
All but 2 Democrat Senators are blocking this, and to me at least, it's just another way for them to have their petty vengeance on President Bush.
It amazes me, given the 4 year track record of the Patriot Act, why it would be opposed now. It's a proven tool in the fight.
Yes, that would be the Democrats and those who don't understand the consequences.
Sport.
While you were screeching the end of the world and stockpiling your Y2K bunker, I came out of retirement to run Y2K projects in Nuclear plants and Electrical companies, in order to be certain there would be no apocalypse.
The worth of your opinion is well known.
Come on now everyone preferred this traitor over the other traitor Smith. He was GW,s choice.</sarcasm>
In other words, you listened to the threat and did something about it.
I suppose you're not able to see the laughable contradiction contained within your own post.
Well, we really are done with 9-11. America won't be serious about the WOT until we are hit again, hard.
Interesting, everyone wants to talk about Sununu, but nobody even mentions Craigs name, and no one is going to question his conservative credentials.
Never trust an Arab. CAIR loves Sununu, just as the PLO loved his father. Sununu Sr. had Bush go 3 times to visit Michigan Arabs in 2000--and still lost the state.
I found it interesting that 2 D's, Ben Nelson and Tim Johnson voted for cloture.
Why don't you take your liberal, pro-flag burning pap to a more hospitable site...say, DU or moveon.org? A troll, eh?
" I know. She pushed for it when Clinton was president. I opposed it then, and still do today."
That sure says a lot about the So-called Patriot Act if Reno was for it.
Feel free to use this to email or print to YOUR senators, as you see fit. Here is the URL: http://tinypic.com/ioknj6.jpg
I agree with that 100%.
both are up for re-election.
I don't know either, and I can only guess, but if I had to guess, since he is also on the board of directors of the NRA, I'd guess something in there bothered him, or he saw something in the bill that he doesn't like or has been used in a way he doesn't like.
I have alot of faith and trust in Senator Craig and his character and judgement, he is a true conservative and is privvy to more info then me, so I'm sure he has good reasoning, I just wish he would explain it and talk about it.
I did notice that the NRA isn't taking a stand on this either way, which is a nice way of giving alot of conservatives the okay to go against it.
I think its healthy for the bill to be debated, evaluated, and fine tuned, every so often (thank god for sunsets).
Some parts may need strenghting, and other parts may have been overly used.
So was former Texas Senator Phil Gramm.
Is it okay to guess, you weren't a supporter of former senator Gramm?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.