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]
Sorry, another post to no one..
Rush defends what HASN'T happened (THAT WE KNOW OF) to allow it to happen in the future and THEN address it.
THAT is not how our Constitution was drawn. Looking to the future to prevent FUTURE GOVERNMENT ABUSE.
Rush, is a lightweight.
As are you, Carry, as are you. That's what having a strong point of view is all about.
Just so you get it plain and simple:
First, I revere the Constitution -- 100% of it, including the 2nd Amendment, but also including provisions that give the President broad powers to protect and defend this country.
Second, I do not support any language, in any bill, that attempts to weaken or subvert the 2nd Amendment.
Third, to me the Patriot Act is extremely necessary in a post 9/11 world. I believe it is now dead thanks largely to the Left, but also to Craig, Sununu, Murkowski and that POS Hagel.
Lastly, Craig was on the Rush show a short while ago. I didn't get to hear everything he said, but most of it. Perhaps he spoke of the 2nd Amendment in the segment I didn't catch, but in the segments I did hear, Craig spoke only of civil liberties issues that concern him. He sounded sincere, but I couldn't help wonder where his 2nd Amendment argument was given the big deal you've been making about it.
He spoke of other parts of concern to him as well. He highlighted HIS concerns based on previous experience with Ruby Ridge, Elian Gonzalez, and the abuses of AG Janet Reno under Clinton. Sadly, Rush was on the run, as I think Sen. Craig would've answered all questions on each issue raised in his press release. Perhaps YOU can call his office as well.
To be pissy about a Senator, perhaps a lone one, that expresses concern about YOUR RITHTS, seems rather odd. If you indeed heard the first part, you'd have already understood, he supports the PA, but has been concerned about the weaknesses and abuses under a DIFFERENT Administration. Apparently BUSH is not the least concerned about abuse.
I don't live in Idaho.
To be pissy about a Senator, perhaps a lone one, that expresses concern about YOUR RITHTS, seems rather odd.
I'm not "pissy" about him. I'm disgusted that the Patriot Act has been killed. You and others like you keep dismissing the concerns of those who do not want to see necessary tools discarded that help keep the American people as safe as possible from Islamofacists. Why?
If you indeed heard the first part...
What part of "I didn't get to hear everything he said," do you not understand?
The one thing I did hear that resonated with me was his statement about living in Idaho when the Ruby Ridge family was destroyed. I agree with Craig that such abuses as Ruby Ridge and Waco must be prevented from happening again. However, they happened when there was no Patriot Act, and the 2nd Amendment didn't help those people.
In any case, as I keep repeating, your side has gotten its way. The Patriot Act is dead, so this conversation is moot.
It does this during war time. I see you have no answer why the second amendment is more important than the others.
You can call and support ANY Senators position. You don't have to be a constituent to have a voice. You are too used to how Democrats think.
Secondly, you CONTINUE to swerve past the point. The FIREWALLS to connect the dots are not the ones expiring. Do you GET THAT?? HuH?? Too dumb?? Comprehension problems for you??
As for the 2nd Amendment, fine... you don't need yours. We'll see to it that only YOURS are abolished in the name of war. As for me, I'm keeping them if that's okay with you. You do not seem to be able to comprehend ONE SENTENCE of his statement. Doh... Yellow bus crowd.
I, am making the point about the 2nd amendment, as others here are as well as it is PART of the sentence and concern of his.. Can you understand that????? No?? tryyyyyyyyyyyyy... to see it this way.... You really are rather dim. No wonder you can not connect the dots. ARe you with the CIA??
It's our last defense against tyrannical government.
It hasn't been killed. Specter has already announced that he'll reconvene the conference committee to extend it with a time limit, just as I said they would.
You still haven't addressed that Craig's concern is confirmed by the GOA.
It's a pain, but somebody has to do it. I'm just wondering where the Bang List crowd has been.
X-ref to abuse mark:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1544717/posts?page=160#160
In any case, giving you the benefit of the doubt this one time:
(1) I have said time and again on this thread that I do not want the 2nd Amendment threatened, so bury that shibboleth.
(2) Of course I know we can call any senator. However, I think it's pointless because the staff only records constituent calls. Besides, I have nothing I want to convey to Craig. He did what he did. If he did it for legitimate reasons of principle, fine. If not, time will tell.
(3) I am "swerving" past no points. From the AP: "Without some sort of compromise, the 16 provisions expire Dec. 31." That essentially guts the Patriot Act, effectively killing it. At least that is my understanding of the situation. If you understand it differently and wish to explain where I'm wrong -- and if you can do so calmly and respectfully -- I will listen.
(4) Lastly, you wrote: "You do not seem to be able to comprehend ONE SENTENCE of his statement." What part of the following, which I wrote in my prior post, did you not understand?
The one thing I did hear that resonated with me was his statement about living in Idaho when the Ruby Ridge family was destroyed. I agree with Craig that such abuses as Ruby Ridge and Waco must be prevented from happening again.
Senator Craig is one voice out of many whose concerns should be addressed by Congress and then the president. Sunsets are a kind of checks and balances upon our government. The Patriot Act is four years old and the concerns of citizens troubled by parts of the Act have not been adequately addressed. More time is needed. For some of the more troubling provisions to become permanent, with no sunset, is unsettling.
The worries about gun registration are a legitimate concern. More so when considering that 90% of the "sneak and peek" warrants issued have been used in criminal cases, not in cases of terrorism as it intended. Source: Department of Justice.
We should not be inclined to suffer these evils, though obviously many consider them sufferable, not when the provisions in question will become permanent, with no sunset likely. More time is required to iron out the differences.
What is left of our country if all of the other rights are gone except guns?
Apparently, you only pay attention to the subject when start the insult game and suffer the same. Now, we are on the same SIDE. Glad you woke up.
As for my style... you either love me or you don't. Because I am looking out for us all.. I am NOT a party hack. Thank you for your kind attention... :)
Excellent post Simo Hayha.. We are agreed 1000%. These serious issues SHOULD be reviewed.
We all have a responsibility as taught in the Constitution, to stand vigil protecting the constitution. Some frankly, are too ignorant to understand why. Sadly, oaths to protect and preserve are tossed immediately after the swearing in. Which is why, we the people, are the first name to stand in alert. JMHO>
The necessity of the commitment of lives, fortunes, and sacred honor in the defense of liberty didn't end with the Second Treaty of Paris.
That was just a beginning.
Free exercise of religion and free assembly are in the toilet. Free speech has been reduced to political correctness as defined by the media. The Sixth Amendment has been reduced to a joke (juries have been totally deballed). The Eighth and Fifth Amendments are for protecting criminals while property owners can take a hike. The Tenth Amendment was dead a hundred years ago. The Seventh and Ninth have been ignored. Now "Republicans" are wailing to kill what's left of the Fourth.
Take a look around you. We're nearly there.
BTW, I never said that the Second Amendment was more important than the rest; that was your inference. Nor did I say that we didn't need many of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act. Gutting the Second Amendment is non-negotiable and Congress has PLENTY of time to fix it or extend it before it expires.
Sen. Craig is spitting on the very good while demanding perfection. When he is once again with the Republican minority party he will wish he was more pragmatic. All the rest is just posturing.
Nonsense. The need for warrantless searches of gun records as a means of counter-terrorism cannot be substantiated.
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.