Posted on 12/20/2005 7:36:23 AM PST by JesseJane
Reviewing, Revising, Renewing - The Patriot Act
by Senator Larry Craig
Back in August, shortly after reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act was approved by the Senate, I wrote a piece praising the role of Idahoans in improving the Patriot Act and protecting Americans' civil liberties. Now, as 2005 and the first session of the 109th Congress draw to a close, it's time for an update on the progress of the Patriot reauthorization.
Since then, the House passed its own version of the bill, and members of the House and Senate were appointed to a conference committee to resolve the differences. On December 14, the House approved the conference report.
In the buildup to the Senate vote, my name has been thrown around quite a bit on the pages of the newspapers, because I made it known that I would not be supporting the conference report. Why not? While the bill does preserve important tools for law enforcement, it doesn't do enough to protect the civil liberties of innocent Americans.
The conference report would allow the government to obtain library, medical and gun records and other sensitive personal information under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, without demonstrating specific reasons to believe that person is connected to a suspected terrorist or spy. Currently, federal agents can simply say those records are relevant to an authorized intelligence investigation.
As business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have argued, this would allow government fishing expeditions targeting innocent Americans. We believe the government should be required to convince a judge that the records they are seeking have some connection to a suspected terrorist or spy. The Senate-passed version of the Patriot reauthorization had this requirement, but the conference report does not.
I am also concerned about the conference report's treatment of the use of National Security Letters (NSLs). NSLs are similar to a subpoena from a court. Federal agents can use them to gather certain types of sensitive information about a suspect, including business records. Someone who receives an NSL is placed under a gag order and cannot discuss the NSL with anyone except an attorney, and must report that contact to the FBI. Furthermore, if someone feels they have been unjustly served an NSL, their ability to challenge it in court is harshly limited by the law, and the conference report does not allow meaningful judicial review of the gag order.
There are other concerns I have with the current form of the conference report for the Patriot reauthorization bill, but the space to discuss them is limited.
That being said, significant compromises were made when the House and Senate conferees met to iron out the differences between the two versions. The conference report, in its current form, includes real improvements on the Patriot Act that is on the books.
Who can Idahoans thank for these improvements? You can thank yourselves! Shortly after the original Patriot Act was approved in 2001, Idahoans from all walks of life, from all points of the political spectrum came to the Idaho Congressional Delegation with concerns about the Patriot Act and civil liberties. Hearing those concerns, we worked together to improve the law. The result has been improved safeguards for the rights of Americans.
Several areas of the law still need adjustment to better protect civil liberties. I believe that is why my colleagues joined me in supporting a filibuster to gain a limited extension of time for negotiators to work out the few remaining problems. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate to oppose reauthorization of Patriot until these concerns are met.
President Bush is right when he says we cannot afford to go one moment without the tools that the Patriot Act provides. However, we must strike a balance in the law, so our law enforcement officials have all the necessary tools to fight terrorism, while Americans' civil liberties have all the protection they need as well.
[30]
Of course, but the statists were trying to slam it down their throats. Hopefully, now they'll go back to the conference committee and fix it. They still have time for that and a floor vote.
I'm not giving up the Second Amendment for two weeks of coverage under the PATRIOT Act. No way.
You believe that freedom of the press doesn't include library books? Interesting.
Agreed. Craig put them on notice, and they all wanted to play Mexican standoff at the expense innocent Americans either way. Time to call all of them to consider a suggestion like yours. I'd rather have someone stand up for me, than the government. The track record of the 109th is deplorable. JMHO>
Thanks for posting this.
Amen.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
You have some fascinating ideas about the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech.
Larry listen up. Right now we have a Patriot Act that is 100% intact. We have had ZERO successful attacks on American soil. So when you and your Democrat buddies plus ACLU Bobby Barr get to water down the act, how will you know when to stop? Will it be after a few car bombings? Maybe it will be when parts of America's history are blown up, but when will you and your followers say "OOPS! I guess we cut a little too deep!" Think about it pal. Just how much terrorism is ok with you to satisfy YOUR ideas of how much security is too much security.
They are the ones who offered an extension.
It's the majority that refuses to entertain that option.
IMO, the majority will prevail before the end of the year.
Letting it all lapse on December 31 produces real dangers ...
I think the differences between "we have patriot" and "some measures lapse" isn't all that great. Of course, the gap isn't "zero," but I will not feel more at risk if the Patriot Act provisions sunset.
USA Patriot Act Sunset: Provisions That Expire on December 31, 2005
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32186.pdf
The new act has lots of new provisions.
Starting point to full text of the Patriot Act ...
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3162:
You are both missing the point.
It is clear that this act violates more than one right in the bill of rights.
What is unclear is how the author is okay with some of those rights being violated while he is not okay with the gun rights being violated.
I ask, how is one of the BOR more important than the others?
It would seem that if he is to object against one violation, he should object against all of them.
Is his objection merely because he wants to score points with the gun lobby?
I agree. If this was Bill (or Hillary) Clinton pushing this, there would be a lot of people screaming and not a few quietly building bunkers waiting for the jack boots to come get them. (Of course, there always a few that will build bunkers no matter what!)
We have no way of knowing who will be in Congress in 2007, or the White House in 2008. I have been saying for everyone here "Would you want President Hillary with the PA?"
If you can say "Yes" then go ahead and push for it. After seeing what the RICO laws have become, I don't all the provisions of the PA on the books.
You didn't even read his press release did you?
There's a line of sheep over there by the cliff.... ====>
I would rather it would be anyone else, but I would have to concede she would need the PA in order to protect us. At least for now. Short answer. Yes. I would give Hillary the same powers if she were president.
An armed population is our best defense against terrorism. A police state can never be in enough places at once to do that job. You would give government the power to disarm us and destroy that best defense believing in despotism to protect you.
Some of the terrorost thugs that flew planes into the Twin Towers booked their tickets on-line at the local library.
IMO that trumps any concern for library rights.
The PA had gun records provisions - bang!
All we need to do is arm everyone and terrorism will stop? That is your premise? When were you born?
Thank you for being honest. I would not be comfortable with an administration having legal authorization to confiscate gun, library, or credit card records without a warrant. To remove that protection invites abuse. Again look at the RICO acts. The original intention of the law was good, but it left the door open to wide.
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.