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]
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Twice, the leadership in the U.S. Senate has tried to run H.R. 3199 up "the hill." Twice it has failed.
On Friday, supporters of the bill failed to garner the 60 votes needed to stop the filibuster of the PATRIOT conference report. The final vote was 52-47.
At issue for gun owners is a provision that would allow the FBI to obtain "firearms sales records." The bill extends Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act and allows agents of the federal government to get "firearms sales records" which, in their opinion, are relevant to investigating terrorism.
These records would be obtained from gun dealers, who are required by law to keep the gun purchase records (4473 forms). Thus, an anti-gun administration could then easily compile gun owner registration lists -- an enterprise which has often been a prelude to gun confiscation.
Congressmen on both sides of the fence made reference to GOA's concerns last week when the House considered the latest version of H.R. 3199.
During the debate, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) stated that people "should take note of what is happening here because the expanded police powers of the Federal Government will be used against them. Our Second Amendment friends already understand that...."
And Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) challenged House Republicans to consider whether they are really comfortable with "allowing the FBI to access Americans' reading records, GUN RECORDS, medical records and financial records without judicial approval; [or] allowing the FBI to search someone's home without probable cause and without telling that person about the search."
In the Senate, Larry Craig (R-ID) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) led the opposition to the latest version of the bill. If a compromise is not reached, 16 provisions of the bill will expire on December 31 -- provisions that include the Section 215 "gun registration" language.
Much has been made of the expiration date later this month. People should understand that only 16 provisions of the original PATRIOT Act will expire on New Year's -- and these provisions are some of the most controversial ones in the original act, as they affect the Fourth Amendment protections that American citizens enjoy.
REGISTRATION OF GUN OWNERS
H.R. 3199 would extend provisions which the FBI claims would allow it to seize 4473 forms, without the approval of any judge.
This runs contrary to the protections that were gained in the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, when it prohibited the establishment of any registration system with respect to firearms [18 USC 926(a)(3)]. It is also significant to note that federal code bans inspections of gun dealers records, excluding four, narrowly tailored exceptions [18 USC 923(g)(1)(b)]. Those exceptions are absent with regard to the FBI's current practice of soliciting 4473 forms under the PATRIOT Act.
The protections that were won during the McClure-Volkmer battle took years to achieve, and it would be a shame to see those protections superseded by another enactment of gun control -- all in the vain hope that gun owners' purchase records can somehow help authorities curb terrorism. (Gun registration certainly hasn't worked to curb crime in any of the states or localities that have implemented it.)
For this reason, Gun Owners of America has told Senators that we would like to see serious reforms in this bill, including language which further restricts the ability of a future, anti-gun administration to muster a gun owner registration list.
The status of H.R. 3199 is unclear at this time. But it is more than likely that the Senate will hold another vote later this week.
ACTION: Please contact your two Senators and urge them to vote against the House-Senate conference report on H.R. 3199, unless gun records are removed from the records which can be demanded under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act.
Don't waste your time chattering to about how it can still be done if they just pull the language you don't like out of the bill. There are plenty of enemies of the Patriot Act from a variety of political persuasions who have made common cause to defeat it. It ain't going nowhere.
The next time some Islamofacist scumbag pulls off a major attack in the U.S., anything you and others who helped kill it may have to say will fall totally on deaf ears.
Don't waste your time chattering to about how it can still be done if they just pull the language you don't like out of the bill.
I take it that you therefore support national gun registration.
The next time some Islamofacist scumbag pulls off a major attack in the U.S., anything you and others who helped kill it may have to say will fall totally on deaf ears.
So you want, expect, and DEMAND, fascism! Who knew?
Don't be an idiot. Demagoguery will get you nowhere, at least not with me. You're the one who keeps harping on the 2nd Amendment as though the Patriot Act repeals it or something. I haven't said word one about it other than to express support for it. You're the one who's siding with Hagel on this while disrespecting the President because you can't separate this issue from the border issue.
I don't need to justify any case against Craig. I disagree with him (and the others), and am suspicious of his motives. Period. Perhaps he is acting on principle, perhaps not. I have no way of knowing. I can be pretty sure Hagel is not. Sununu is a northeast liberal Republican. Murkowski is as much of a surprise on this as is Craig, so I'm equally suspicious of her motives. End of story.
End of story except that Los Angeles has been lucky to escape a major terrorist attack so far even though it has been targeted. With the death of the Patriot Act, Los Angeles becomes that much more vulnerable. None of your hypotheticals and theoretical arguments hold a candle to that reality.
Daniel J. Schultz writes on the origins of the second amendment:
A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army:If these nanny staters knew anything about the Constitution, they'd come out and attack the fathers of our country directly.
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government.
As it is, I can't see why they're so desperate to obtain the PA just as it is. It's almost as if President Bush's speech advocating that the PA be reauthorized immediately has them convinced that it simply can't be done properly in the short amount of time left.
What a hoot! In general, they're saying some bad provisions in the Patriot Act are acceptable because we can't do without it. And why can't we just take out the bad provisions and get on with it? Evidently because it would take too much discussion! I don't even think President Bush meant that.
And you never asked that.
It would appear to me that if you had true concern about our rights you would object to every infraction.
That's not the topic of this thread. My questions to you are on the topic of this thread. I have answered your questions. You refuse to address mine to you. That's because you can't address them without admitting that the government really is wilfully violating the Constitution.
That is because it effectively does. GOA agrees.
You're the one who's siding with Hagel on this while disrespecting the President because you can't separate this issue from the border issue.
No, I'm not siding with Hagel. I don't even know what his issues are. I'm siding with Craig, but because you can't address that, you twisted what I said into something else.
That's misdirection. It's dishonest.
I don't need to justify any case against Craig.
Then you don't need to support your argument. So sit quietly in a corner and pout.
I disagree with him (and the others), and am suspicious of his motives. Period. Perhaps he is acting on principle, perhaps not. I have no way of knowing.
For which you have not supplied a shred of evidence.
With the death of the Patriot Act, Los Angeles becomes that much more vulnerable. None of your hypotheticals and theoretical arguments hold a candle to that reality.
The idea that gun records would be substantive to the protection of the Port of Los Angeles is idiotic.
You can spin any way you want, and give any reason you want, but you ARE siding with the Left and with Hagel on this particular issue. I can't say I'm surprised. The far Right does find common cause with the Left more often than some might realize, even though their motivations are different.
Lastly, you said, "The idea that gun records would be substantive to the protection of the Port of Los Angeles is idiotic." The converse is also true. The idea that citizens with guns are going to stop a sneak attack blowing up LAX (the millenium plot), or SAM's fired at planes taking off from one of our big commercial airports, or even a suicide bomber going off in a mall is ridiculous. If small arms, alone, could have put an end to Islamofacism that madness would have been defeated long ago.
We need our 2nd Amendment, that's for sure. However, we also need the tools in the Patriot Act, and they are being taken away due to pure venal politics. Nothing more.
I have no choice but to take your word for it that gun rights are the only thing that sticks in your craw about the act. However, the entire act has gone down and I doubt very much that it's coming back. It will be most interesting, though, to see if Craig and Murkowski find a way to come on board. If they do, I would be most interested to find out if the particular language you're concerned about is still in the bill.
Most Republicans are pro 2nd Amendment, so it would seem to me to be easy for Craig to get what he claims he wants on that issue. He may be putting that out for public consumption in his pro-gun state, but watch the outcome, not what he says to a gullible public.
Remember the lesson of Duke Cunningham. Even the good guys can go bad.
So, you do support this backdoor gun registration scheme?
You are for national firearms registration by the federal government?
Yes or no.
Even on a conservative website, jackboot lickers abound.
No and no. I do not support any such provisions. Period. No gray area. Stop being insulting with your silly tests and pay attention to what I am saying.
I don't know if there really is a "backdoor gun registration scheme" in the bill's language. I'm reluctant to take Craig's word for it when I know there are other equally strong pro-2nd Amendment Republicans in the senate who don't agree with Craig on this. Does it mean he's wrong? No. Does it mean he's right. No. What I am saying is that I don't know.
However, the Patriot Act is extremely important in protecting the American people from the Islamofacists. I do not want it killed, but it has been thanks to the Left, primarily, and to four Republican senators whose motives are -- to me -- suspicious.
End of story. I'm not going to change my mind just because you and Carry have a different opinion.
"My disagreement with the president's statement at his press conference is that the ability to connect the dots is still in place, " Craig said. "The firewalls are not in that area of the law that's expiring."
Craig said he he and most members of Congress believe a majority of the provisions in the Patriot Act are appropriate, but there were iimportant civil liberty safeguards left out of the final reauthorization bill that give the federal government powers "that have a real opportunity for misuse."
Listening to Rush now.. Larry Craig requested time on Rush's show to EXPLAIN HIS POSITION. He will be on at the top of the hour according to Rush.
Please pass along as you see fit. Thanks ~jj
bttt!
Thx 4 da bump TM !!~~
Rush referred to the caller asking about Craigs concerns as a possible SEMINAR CALLER. Hmm.. what has happened to Rush ?? He's rather afraid of CAFTA, illegals, AND anything that questions W's policies or demands. He's starting to sound like a Democrat who must march in line, or else. Things that make 'ya say, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
You are forgetting the GOA.
Good grief are you stuck in your own head.
End of story. I'm not going to change my mind just because you and Carry have a different opinion.
This isn't a matter of opinion. Unless you can post facts to the contrary, I'll take the word of the GOA. Their record in defense of the Second Amendment is unbroken.
Larry Craig is just KICKING BUTT on Rush's show. Thank you Sen. Craig. And Thanks to Rush for allowing him time to explain this.
FWIW: Rush has proven he is NOT a Constitutionalist but a W Flag waver in the name of partisan politics.
WELL DONE SEN. CRAIG!!! THANK YOU for standing up for the CONSTITUTION. My DEEPEST thanks. God Bless!!
All other Republicans better THINK about their vote now.
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.