Archive for Saturday, December 17, 2005

Senate blocks Patriot Act

Opposition cites threat to constitutional liberties

December 17, 2005

Advertisement

— In a stinging defeat for President Bush, Senate Democrats blocked passage Friday of a new Patriot Act to combat terrorism at home, depicting the measure as a threat to the constitutional liberties of innocent Americans.

Republicans spurned calls for a short-term measure to prevent the year-end expiration of law enforcement powers first enacted in the anxious days after Sept. 11, 2001. "The president will not sign such an extension," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and lawmakers on each side of the issue blamed the other for congressional gridlock on the issue.

The Senate voted 52-47 to advance a House-passed bill to a final vote, eight short of the 60 needed to overcome the filibuster backed by nearly all Senate Democrats and a handful of the 55 Republicans.

"We can come together to give the government the tools it needs to fight terrorism and protect the rights and freedoms of innocent citizens," said Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., arguing that provisions permitting government access to confidential personal data lacked safeguards to protect the innocent.

"We need to be more vigilant," agreed Sen. John Sununu, a Republican from New Hampshire, where the state motto is "Live Free or Die." He quoted Benjamin Franklin: "Those that would give up essential liberty in pursuit of a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security."

But Frist likened the bill's opponents to those who "have called for a retreat and defeat strategy in Iraq. That's the wrong strategy in Iraq. It is the wrong strategy here at home."





How they voted

The Senate voted 52-47 to reject reauthorization of several provisions of the USA Patriot Act. Sixty votes were needed to overcome a filibuster of the bill. On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote to end the filibuster. Voting "yes" were two Democrats and 50 Republicans. Voting "no" were 41 Democrats, five Republicans and one independent. Kansas: Brownback (R) Yes; Roberts (R) Yes

Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz., said, "If 90-plus percent of the Democrats vote against cloture, and 90-plus percent of the Republicans vote for cloture, it is hard to argue it is not partisan." Cloture is a Senate term that refers to ending a filibuster.

Bush reacts

In a statement, Bush said terrorists "want to attack America again and kill the innocent and inflict even greater damage" than four years ago. "Congress has a responsibility not to take away this vital tool that law enforcement and intelligence have used."

Congressional officials pointed to a provision in the existing law that said even if it expired, law enforcement agencies could continue to wield Patriot Act powers in existing investigations of all known groups such as al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and the Zarqawi group in Iraq.

Justice Department officials said no existing wiretap would have to be turned off. But they said expiration of the law would create confusion about whether information gleaned after Jan. 1 could be shared, even if it stemmed from an ongoing investigation.

What is included









Commissioners respond

City Commissioner David Schauner: "The concerns raised today were some of the same concerns I had a year and a half ago," Schauner said of the act giving law enforcement easier access during terrorism investigations to personal records, such as library records. "It just seems to me that we did do the right thing 18 months ago and find that balance between civil rights and protection," Schauner said of the Lawrence resolution. "I'm pleased that the Senate's going to sort of stand back from the precipice and give it some additional discussion and work with troublesome areas of the act," Schauner said. City Commissioner Mike Rundle: "It think it's a breath of fresh air or a breath of reason," Rundle said. "To me, it was more un-American than patriotic," Rundle said. "Congress recognizes that the Patriot Act was part of the problem," Rundle said.

Much of the controversy involved powers granted to law enforcement agencies to gain access to a wealth of personal data, including library and medical records, in secret, as part of investigations into suspected terrorist activity.

The bill also includes a four-year extension of the government's ability to conduct roving wiretaps - which may involve multiple phones - and continues the authority to wiretap "lone wolf" terrorists who may operate on their own, without control from a foreign agent or power.

Yet another provision, which applies to all criminal cases, gives the government 30 days to provide notice that it has carried out a search warrant. Current law requires the government to disclose search warrants in a reasonable period of time.

During debate, several Democrats pointed to a New York Times report that Bush had secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on individuals inside the United States without first securing permission from the courts.

"Today's revelation makes it crystal clear that we have to be very careful, very careful," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

No Republican defended the reported practice, and the bill's chief Republican supporter joined in the criticism. "There is no doubt that this is inappropriate," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He pledged hearings in 2006.

Under the measure the Senate was considering, law enforcement officials could continue to obtain secret access to a variety of personal records from businesses, hospitals and other organizations, including libraries.

Access is obtained by order of a secret court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Specter told the bill's critics that before such permission is granted, a judge would have to "make a determination on a factual showing that there is a terrorism investigation that does involve foreigners."

Comments

enochville 9 years, 8 months ago

I love sunsetting clauses built into bills. Not that every bill should have a sunset clause, but I defininately think many should. It was appropriate for the Patriot Act in my opinion.

jayhawks71 9 years, 8 months ago

People just don't get it. Feingold has it right. This Act was thrown together in 'the anxious moments following 9-11.' That means it needs to be rebuilt at a time when sound minds prevail. The legislature can do better than the Patriot Act. And that name.... if you are against it, you must be "unpatriotic!" What a scam. The patriots consist of the one's who see the erosion of American through the elimination of freedoms. What are you protecting if you systematically eliminate rights and freedoms? I can't go check out books from the library without being watched??!?!?!

Richard Heckler 9 years, 8 months ago

I say elected reps on both sides of the aisle were "used" by by the white house during a very emotional time.

Someday Homeland Security will come under the same scrutiny as it fails to produce the desired result.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.