Senate Proposes Patriot Act Extension

geekylinuxkid writes "Senate leaders reached a bipartisan agreement Wednesday night to extend expiring and controversial provisions of the Patriot Act for six months. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Republican from Tennessee, announced the agreement from the Senate floor, ending an impasse over the measure." From the article: "Last week, the House voted 251-174 to renew the 16 provisions after striking a compromise that altered some of them. The provisions were set to expire at year's end if not renewed. Controversial measures include those allowing the FBI -- with a court order -- to obtain secret warrants for business, library, medical and other records, and to get a wiretap on every phone a suspect uses." More commentary on the BBC. We reported on last week's failure of the original renewal.

Extending our Freedom to be Safe? Or Spyed on?

[TheUncleD]

Last week, the House voted 251-174 to renew the 16 provisions after striking a compromise that altered some of them.

Fortunately, this doesn't guarantee it will pass. One of the provisions I agree with is the one that eliminates barriers to intelligence agents and prosecutors sharing information. This act has already infringed on many peoples freedom, but has also opened up the government to be more scrutinous in the case of certain suspicious entities. Has it overall had a positive or negative effect? Since we as the general public cannot easily gauge what information they have collected entirely as a result, who can say for sure.

For those interested in the provisions the House passed, this site explains most of them in plain english LA Times Provisions [latimes.com]

This site has the latest in how the patriot act [epic.org] currently stands.

Now is the time!

[Stanistani]

US citizens:
Write, phone, email your Representatives and Senators - and ask them to knock down at least some of the more onerous provisions of the Patriot Act - I'm thinking of provisions like the one allowing secret warrants, for example.

Many of them will be back in their districts for the holidays. Visit their offices and talk politely with their staff. Inform yourselves of the Act's details, and make to-the-point suggestions.

Exercise democracy. The Act is vulnerable at this moment.

Re:Why is a warrant needed?

[jav1231]

Just for the record, Clinton authorized the Attorney General to do the same type of wiretapping (without a warrant) as did Carter. Oh, but they were Democrats.

Re:Other presidents have done the same thing...

[geoffrobinson]

Here is a reference:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610- 7772r.htm [washtimes.com]

Re:Why is a warrant needed?

[SeattleGameboy]

Liar!

Clinton and Carter created Executive Orders PURSUANT to FISA - which FOBIDS spying on US citizens. The executive orders that Clinton and Carter create were nothing more than a list of delegates (in his cabinet) who can use FISA powers.

NO WHERE in ANY ONE of those Executive Orders or FISA about search US citizens without warrants (in fact, it is specifically prohibited).

Why don't you research something on your own instead of repeating what Rush and Fox News says? ...Idiot

Re:PATRIOT act mythology

[Travoltus]

Actually, it violates the 4th and 5th amendments to the US Constitution and some of it has already been thrown out by judges.

http://www.devshed.com/showblog/1305/PATRIOT-Act-D eclawed [devshed.com]

Re:Why is a warrant needed?

[BorgCopyeditor]

For the record, the reference to Clinton is a red herring [thinkprogress.org]. Totally different situation (a kind of search that was not covered under the law), totally different response (they went to Congress and asked for an amendment to the law specifically authorizing the new kind of serach). The kinds of searches implemented by Bush & co. were covered under the existing law, and they could have gone to the court within 72 hours of beginning surveillance to ask for authorization, but instead they chose not to. AG Gonzales actually said in press interviews that they chose to do things this way because they supposed that the court would have denied their requests. So they just did it anyway, law be damned.

Do you see the difference?

Re:Win a little - lose a little

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. Just like how the original PATRIOT act was voted against by all the democrats. Oh wait.

Let's get it out of the way...

[sigzero]

President Bush is NOT the only president that believes the office of the president has executive power to conduct warrantless searches to acquire foreign intelligence information. President Clinton did it in 1995 and President Carter did it in 1979.

Even the FISA court itself admitted "that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." President Bush stated that these were only done where ties to Al Qaeda were suspected and so it falls into his authority.

Also in 2002 when the Patriot Act and the FISA act were being looked at for constitunality it was determined by the court "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

Previous administrations believed and faught for the same thing!

That doesn't mean we should not be cautious about any of this though. We should!

Re:Why is a warrant needed?

[SeattleGameboy]

LIAR!!!

Clinton was arguing that since FISA allowed warrant-less wire tapping for FOREIGN AGENTS, the president should be able to do the same for physical searches - for FOREIGN AGENTS! (FISA was later amended to include this)

FISA specifically outlaws wireless taps on US citizens without warrants. What part of US Citizen do you not understand?

Nobody is criticizing Bush for wire tapping Bin Laden without warrants. Everybody is PISSED because he did that on US Citizens and BROKE THE LAW he is supposed to protect!

Re:can someone provide an example?

[chill]

When Homeland Security agents arrived at the Pufferbelly Toys store, the lead agent asked owner Stephanie Cox whether she carried a toy called the Magic Cube, which he said was an illegal copy of the Rubik's Cube, one of the most popular toys of all time. Invoking the Patriot Act, he told her to remove the Magic Cube from her shelves, and he watched to make sure she complied.

Search Google for "patriot act pufferbelly toy store" for lots of entertaining details.

P.S. -- The Magic Cube was a properly licensed toy. Even if this WAS in the purvue of the Dept of Homeland Security, they were wrong. Something that would have come up in a normal "cease and desist" law case.

  -Charles

Re:Why is a warrant needed?

[SeattleGameboy]

So, now you are using more lies to bolster your first lie? Nice, Bush has nothing on you!

Bush authorized taps on international calls. There is no wholesale wiretapping of citizens.

Wow, such monumental ignorance is hard to rebutt, but I will try. First, FISA specifically states that the govt has freedom to wire tap ANY electronic transmissions that happens inside or outside our borders. However, it also states CLEARLY that if a US citizen is involved in that communication, you MUST GET A WARRANT.

Bush has ALREADY ADMITTED that he ordered NSA to break this rule and wire tap calls made by US citizens. But he tried to weasel out of some of that saying it was "only for international calls". Less than a day later now we have officials coming out and saying "well, it was MOSTLY for international calls" (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/politics/21nsa. html?pagewanted=print [nytimes.com]).

Until we get a FULL list of calls intercepted, we have NO IDEA how widely this order was used. And frankly, the current administration has no credibility whatsoever right now.

"Congress authorized Bush to use "all" means. Sounds pretty authoritative to me.

Oh really? I didn't realize that giving authority to Bush to wage war in Afghanistan and Iraq means all other laws go out the door. So you are basically arguing that Bush is, in fact, a DICTATOR. You are arguing that as long as he can justify (in his mind) that his action has ANYTHING to do with terrorism (which I think you would agree comes in almost limitless flavor), he can pretty much choose to do whatever he wants. No matter what Constitution or the law says.

You sir, should leave your citizenship at the door and move to Cuba.

IDIOT!!!

Re:6months is not enough time

[TripMaster Monkey]

I suggest you visit this site [infoplease.com] and familiarize yourself with the event in question.

From the site (emphasis mine):

Tuesday, Dec. 12--The U.S. Supreme Court rules in Bush v. Gore 7-2 to reverse the Florida Supreme Court, which had ordered manual recounts in certain counties. The Court contends that the recount was not treating all ballots equally, and was thus a violation of the Constitution's equal protection and due process guarantees. The Supreme Court of Florida would be required to set up new voting standards and carry them out in a recount. The justices, however, split 5-4 along partisan lines about implementing a remedy. Five justices maintain that this process and the recount must adhere to the official deadline for certifying electoral college votes: midnight, Dec. 12; other justices question the importance of this date. Since the Court makes its ruling just hours before the deadline, it in effect ensures that it is too late for a recount. The decision generates enormous controversy. Those objecting to the ruling assert that the Supreme Court, and not the electorate, has effectively determined the outcome of the presidential election. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writes in a scathing dissent, "the Court's conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the Court's own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States.

Bush's 2000 victory was only 'legal' in the sense that a decision of the SCOTUS must be de facto lawful, as there is no higher legal authority...in other words, the doctrine of 'the King can do no wrong'.

For a taste of how our Founding Father's felt about this doctrine, here's a quote from The Federalist No. 69 [constitution.org]:

The first thing which strikes our attention is, that the executive authority, with few exceptions, is to be vested in a single magistrate. This will scarcely, however, be considered as a point upon which any comparison can be grounded; for if, in this particular, there be a resemblance to the king of Great Britain, there is not less a resemblance to the Grand Seignior, to the khan of Tartary, to the Man of the Seven Mountains, or to the governor of New York.
The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution. In this delicate and important circumstance of personal responsibility, the President of Confederated America would stand upon no better ground than a governor of New York, and upon worse ground than the governors of Maryland and Delaware.

Of course, this is in regard to the executive branch, but similar views were held forth regarding the judicial.
From The Federalist No. 78 [constitution.org]:

The precautions for their responsibility are comprised in the article respecting impeachments. They are liable to be impeached for malconduct by the House of Representatives, and tried by the Senate; and, if convicted, may be dismissed from office, and disqualified for holding any other. This is the only provision on the point which is consistent with the necessary independence of the judicial character, and is the only one which we find in our own Constitution in respect to our own judges.

Re:can someone provide an example?

[chill]

Here's another couple:

http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/1441 [2600.com] [Photographing the VPs entourage at a public hotel]
http://reviewjournal.printthis.clickability.com/pt /cpt?action=cpt&expire=&urlID=8164533&fb=Y&partner ID=565 [clickability.com] [Strip club owner]

  -Charles

This is what the Democrats wanted!

[lorcha]

From TFA [cnn.com]:

The Wednesday agreement marks a tidal shift among GOP leaders who have fervently resisted Democratic offers to temporarily extend the act so it could be revisited.

At least one Democrat applauded the new Republican sentiment.

In a statement calling the extension a "victory for the American people" because it strikes a balance between security and privacy concerns, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said Congress now has time to "get the Patriot Act right."

"I'm glad the president and Republican leaders have agreed with Democrats that we needed an extension," he said. "There's a right way and a wrong way to mend the Patriot Act. The wrong way is to force senators to cast their votes on legislation written in the middle of the night. The right way is the agreement we have tonight."

Looks to me like it was the Republicans who caved on this one.

eh not really

[BitterAndDrunk]

NAFTA is billed as a free trade agreement, but it's a pretty nasty piece of pro-corporate legislation.
NAFTA article [epinet.org]

A money quote from above article:
"In addition, NAFTA included unprecedented guarantees to protect the value of corporate investments and even the rights to earn profits in the future arising out of changes in government regulations or policy. In particular, NAFTA created specific clauses that provide for compensation for lost investments and loss of future profits due to regulations that are "tantamount to expropriation" (NAFTA Secretariat 2003, article 1110). No other part of NAFTA has generated as much controversy as this "investor state" clause. To date, 27 cases have been reviewed under this clause by companies alleging that their foreign investments or their right to earn profits in other countries have been expropriated (Hemispheric Social Alliance 2003, 68-74). These claims, several of which have resulted in damages paid or regulations rescinded, have had a chilling effect on government efforts to regulate private businesses throughout the hemisphere."

Update: House Passes One Month Extension

[Alien54]

The House has just passed a ONE month extension [cnn.com], vs the six month extension of the Senate. They now get to argue over a compromise. Although GWB has not been in the mood for compromise [yahoo.com].

Clarification on electoral college

[tlambert]

Actually, your statement:

        "President is only voted for by the Electoral College, any member of whom can vote for anybody they want."

is substantially incorrect. It's much closer to your next sentence about the "all-or-none nature of each state" - 29 of the 50 states and the District of Columbia have what are called "Faithless Elector" laws, in which an elector is required by state law, and is in violation of that law, if they do not vote for the majority candidate for the state.

Further, there is no provision for apportioning electors between multiple candidates - these laws are in fact "majority rule", where all electoral votes go to a signle candidate based on the state popular vote.

Several states impose fines on electors who violate these laws, and one, New Mexico, treats it as a 4th degree felony (the penalty for a felony includes stripping certain rights of citizenship, including the right to vote in future elections, until and unless the felon is pardoned or the stripped rights are otherwise restored by an act of government).

        http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/Electora lCollege.htm [ncsl.org]

Also, your statement:

        "And the electoral college came about becuase they decided that stupid people shouldn't vote and that an intelligent person should represent their overall preference."

Isn't really that correct, although that was the rationalization used to sell the idea to the Federalists. The actual explanation has more to do with voing technology and communications delays than a plot to disenfranchise "the unwashed masses". It would have been nearly impossible, in the early days of the Republic, to communicate results from polling places to the county seat, and then to the secretary of state, and then to Washington, in under some number of months, effectively leaving us without a rubber-stamped government for large stretches of time following each election.

-- Terry

Re:A Numbers Station?

[marcansoft]

that's called steganography. You can embed data in the LSBs of sound samples, or add "noise" to an image and embed info on it. There's plenty of software to do that already.