Compromising Our Civil Liberties
The conference committee has met to resolve the differences in the House and Senate versions of the Patriot Act, 2005, and they have reached a compromise bill that will be submitted to the houses this week. The "compromise" involved a little tweaking on time limits, but essentially keeps the regime's wishes intact. Although it appears to be all over but the shouting, the Washington Post reports an interesting wrinkle.
Republican negotiators accepted a White House-brokered deal yesterday that clears the way for Congress to vote next week on whether to renew the USA Patriot Act's most controversial provisions for four years, in slightly modified forms.
...But the agreement faces an uncertain future. No Democratic negotiators in the House or Senate embraced the bill that emerged from the conference committee, and a bipartisan group of senators complained that the proposed revisions do too little to protect the civil liberties of innocent Americans. Proponents had hoped for bipartisan support, but said they believe the bill can survive threatened efforts in the Senate to block it. Some warned, however, that the vote could be close.
...But three Senate Democrats and three Republicans issued a statement saying they are "gravely disappointed" that Specter and others agreed during House-Senate negotiations to drop "modest protections for civil liberties" that were included in a version the Senate passed unanimously this year. They predicted the Senate will reject the compromise bill.
The six were Republican Sens. Larry E. Craig (Idaho), John E. Sununu (N.H.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), and Democrats Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), Ken Salazar (Colo.) and Russell Feingold (Wis.). Feingold vowed to launch a filibuster, which would scuttle extension of the Patriot Act unless 60 of the 100 senators oppose his effort. Some Republicans said Democrats would be foolhardy to block an "anti-terrorism" bill on the eve of an election year.
...Leahy and others strongly oppose provisions instructing judges to presume that federal agents should obtain records unless the targeted person can show that the government acted in bad faith. Kennedy called the targeted person's opportunity to challenge a search "arguably worse than nothing."
The Washington Post reported last month that the FBI issues more than 30,000 national security letters a year, a hundred-fold increase over historic norms. The Justice Department disputed the report but has refused to provide its own tally. [Emphasis added]
Look, some things should not be "compromised." For example, children should not be sexually abused. No one would dare argue in this society that because some twelve year olds are very mature for their age, the laws against statutory rape should be changed to allow for having sex with a twelve year old.
I'd like to think that civil liberties as guaranteed in the US Constitution fall into the same category. The Patriot Act was passed during the tumultuous and emotional weeks following 9/11. It was a bad law then, and it's a bad law now. The damned thing should be thrown out and a more measured bill considered.
I hope Feingold has plenty of literature at hand to read during the filibuster, and I hope there are at least 42 senators who have already read the Constitution and are willing to fullfill their oaths to support it.
To be on the safe side, all of us ought to call our senators on Monday morning and urge them to defeat the compromise bill and/or join the gentleman from Wisconsin in speaking right up to the Christmas recess.
Republican negotiators accepted a White House-brokered deal yesterday that clears the way for Congress to vote next week on whether to renew the USA Patriot Act's most controversial provisions for four years, in slightly modified forms.
...But the agreement faces an uncertain future. No Democratic negotiators in the House or Senate embraced the bill that emerged from the conference committee, and a bipartisan group of senators complained that the proposed revisions do too little to protect the civil liberties of innocent Americans. Proponents had hoped for bipartisan support, but said they believe the bill can survive threatened efforts in the Senate to block it. Some warned, however, that the vote could be close.
...But three Senate Democrats and three Republicans issued a statement saying they are "gravely disappointed" that Specter and others agreed during House-Senate negotiations to drop "modest protections for civil liberties" that were included in a version the Senate passed unanimously this year. They predicted the Senate will reject the compromise bill.
The six were Republican Sens. Larry E. Craig (Idaho), John E. Sununu (N.H.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), and Democrats Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), Ken Salazar (Colo.) and Russell Feingold (Wis.). Feingold vowed to launch a filibuster, which would scuttle extension of the Patriot Act unless 60 of the 100 senators oppose his effort. Some Republicans said Democrats would be foolhardy to block an "anti-terrorism" bill on the eve of an election year.
...Leahy and others strongly oppose provisions instructing judges to presume that federal agents should obtain records unless the targeted person can show that the government acted in bad faith. Kennedy called the targeted person's opportunity to challenge a search "arguably worse than nothing."
The Washington Post reported last month that the FBI issues more than 30,000 national security letters a year, a hundred-fold increase over historic norms. The Justice Department disputed the report but has refused to provide its own tally. [Emphasis added]
Look, some things should not be "compromised." For example, children should not be sexually abused. No one would dare argue in this society that because some twelve year olds are very mature for their age, the laws against statutory rape should be changed to allow for having sex with a twelve year old.
I'd like to think that civil liberties as guaranteed in the US Constitution fall into the same category. The Patriot Act was passed during the tumultuous and emotional weeks following 9/11. It was a bad law then, and it's a bad law now. The damned thing should be thrown out and a more measured bill considered.
I hope Feingold has plenty of literature at hand to read during the filibuster, and I hope there are at least 42 senators who have already read the Constitution and are willing to fullfill their oaths to support it.
To be on the safe side, all of us ought to call our senators on Monday morning and urge them to defeat the compromise bill and/or join the gentleman from Wisconsin in speaking right up to the Christmas recess.
posted by Diane at 12:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home