Fixing The Patriot Act -- Fighting Terrorism While Protecting Our Freedoms
Thanks to Josh and the crew here at TPM Café for inviting me this week. I have posted diaries on blogs in the past and have always enjoyed the immediate and thoughtful feedback I get. I'm looking forward to our conversations this week about topics ranging from national security to the need for fundamental lobbying reform. I'm going to begin, however, with the latest on the USA PATRIOT Act.
Although I was the only Senator to vote No on that law back in 2001, I'm not alone anymore. Countless people across the country from all over the political spectrum, have stood up and made it clear that they refuse to sacrifice their rights and freedoms for vague assertions that doing so will make us safer.
To start, I want to go back briefly to what happened in 2001 during the Patriot Act debate. I was the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act, but I wasn't the only one back then who worried that some parts of the Patriot Act went too far. For one thing, the three amendments I offered on the floor got between 7 and 13 votes each! But more importantly, to help convince people to support the bill, the House and Senate negotiators who hammered out the final package created a four-year "sunset" for sixteen of the provisions that expanded the government's surveillance powers. They did this over the strong objection of the Administration, which wanted to take advantage of the immediate post-9/11 atmosphere to make permanent changes to the law.
Some of the sixteen provisions set to expire at the end of this year are really not problematic, but some surveillance sections not subject to the sunset are highly contentious. Those of us in Congress who want to make changes to the Patriot Act have now focused on the most critical issues, some that sunset and some that don't, and several of which were the very issues I was raising on the Senate floor back in 2001.
Often proponents of the Patriot Act respond to critics by pointing to non-controversial provisions that I support, like those that helped to facilitate information sharing between law enforcement and intelligence agents as proof of why the Patriot Act is so valuable. I agree that the Patriot Act contains important provisions, and no one is arguing that they should be allowed to expire or even that they should be subject to a new sunset provision.
Just this past summer, we worked hard in the Senate Judiciary Committee to hammer out a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the expiring provisions of the Patriot Act, while including new protections against government overreaching. We passed that bill unanimously in the Committee, and the full Senate adopted it without debate. That was an extraordinary result, and it gave me real hope that we had turned a corner on this issue and that people of good will could put aside political posturing and go about the serious business of protecting our national security and our constitutional freedoms at the same time. But we have to remember that the Senate bill was itself a compromise. It is not the bill that I and the other bipartisan sponsors of the SAFE Act would have written. But we accepted it because we felt it addressed some of our major concerns in a reasonable way.
Unfortunately, the House passed a very different bill and the Patriot Act conference report that was announced last week after the House and Senate conferees met doesn't do enough to protect the rights and liberties we all hold dear. None of the Democratic conferees signed the report. They deserve great credit for that. In addition, I'm very proud to be working closely with five of my colleagues, three Republicans and two other Democrats, to stop a conference report that doesn't make the changes to the Patriot Act that we believe are critical and justified.
I will do everything I can to prevent this bad conference report from going forward. But no one is trying to force the Patriot Act to expire. The President could sign Patriot Act reauthorization legislation into law tomorrow if the House would just take up and pass the compromise Senate bill that was approved unanimously in the Senate earlier this year - a bill that includes important and reasonable privacy protections. This isn't about stopping Patriot Act reauthorization, it's about getting it right this time around.
So, what happens next? The way things stand right now, it looks like the House will take a vote on the conference report on Tuesday or Wednesday of this week, and then it will come over to the Senate. That's when things could get very interesting.
Sorry for the long initial post, but I wanted to make sure that that everyone has the background and context to follow the show this week. Of course, if I'm busy on the floor, I may not be able to post here as often as I would like, but I will follow your comments and try to keep you up to date on the latest developments.
I'm looking forward to hearing from everyone on this and other issues this week.
Sen. Russ Feingold
Thank you Senator Feingold for having the courage to stand alone against this unAmerican legislation on those irrational, rally-around-the-flag days of 2001. Thank you as well for leading the charge against this conference report. It's a shame that only two other Democrats were willing to stand with you even now (I assume that wasn't by design so that there would be 3 Dems and 3 Republicans).
December 12, 2005 6:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sen. Feingold, thank you for taking the time to post on the TPM Cafe. Thank you also for your courage in standing alone among the Democratic senators to vote against the flawed Patriot Act and for your vote against the Iraq War Resolution. We see how right you were on that issue.
The American people are capable of separating the wheat from the chaff if issues are explained to them in clear terms as you have begun to do here with the Patriot Act. What do we gain if we give up our freedoms in the name of fear evoked by propaganda-type explanations? Just give us the facts, please, and we'll be more likely to support legislation that is sensible and not overkill. I look forward to the discussion here also.
December 12, 2005 6:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Senator Feingold, for your informative post and for your efforts to keep the Patriot Act one in which our country is protected but not at the expense of the fundamental values and freedoms that define us as a democracy and a free people. It was heartening to read that there are some Republicans in the Senate who are willing to act in the interests of the American citizen.
It has been a long and wearying five years since the Bush Administration came to power and the Republican Congress has not, I feel, benefited from their allegiance to the values that came along with this Administration. For all the power and wealth they may enjoy from this experience, there will be no lasting legacy of accomplishment or feeling of goodwill for these members or for this Administration.
I hope you can hold the line and that you will do whatever is in your power (including filibuster) to stem the tide that is destroying what makes America great and good. If that can be done, you will be forever thanked and remembered as a true American patriot.
December 12, 2005 6:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you very much for taking the time to post; I appreciate it in the same way I appreciate your listening sessions in all our state's counties each year.
I have one practical question for anyone on the site: where can I find the actual text of the conference report. I can't find it on thomas, and none of the advocacy groups have posted it. I'd appreciate it if someone could point out a site. Thanks!
December 12, 2005 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Sen. Feingold,
First, thank you for your leadership on many fronts in the Senate. The Democratic leadership and the DNC should be paying more attention to substance (such as yours) rather than style (which reminds me of those god-awful green and blue kitchen color schemes of the seventies, but I digress..)
The Patriot Act reminds me of the canard of "the last refuge of a scoundrel", and typefies for me the BushCo administration. I believe the two most odious provisions are the "sneak and peek" and the target letters sent out by Justice that demand information based on a whim, where the "target" has no right of review or even of the knowledge of the investigation. Given this administrations' prediliction for partisan politics over policy, the thought that they have the power to create political "enemies lists" at will gives me the feeling of traveling back in time to J. Edgar Hoover's notion of privacy.
Moreover, the constant refrain from this bunch of "criticism = traitorous" behavior is prelude to an even greater loss. The chilling effect that it has on the population is evident- when even Senators and Congressmen are beyond being attacked so viciously, how can the average citizen feel secure in expressing discontent without fear of retribution? I attended the anti-war march in Washington in September, and remember seeing many who had their faces covered. I thought that type of display was the mark of civil protest in second and third world societies that harbored "death squads". In this society, however, death can come in many forms. If your employer, doctor, bank, landlord, insurance carrier and hospital get those requests from Justice, how long before the repercussions begin to emerge? Denied the ability to fight unjust intrusion on our lives, the mere suggestion of wrongdoing is writ large by the request. In the ever more connected "public" databases maintained by the Choicepoints of the world and used extensively by all branches of the government to skirt the privacy requirements, it is almost impossible to correct misinformation. That is a "death by a thousand cuts", because of the continued propagation of false information.
I am not versed in the entire breadth of the "Patriot" act- but in the climate of doublespeak that the BushCo machine seems so intent on framing every issue with, even the name implies the odious nature from which the law springs.
December 12, 2005 7:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's amazing that after four years, still only a handful of Senators understand what the Patriot Act means for our civil liberties.
Imagine where we'd be without your leadership on this issue?
Thanks for keeping up the fight.
December 12, 2005 7:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Feingold, first I want to offer my gratitude as a naturalized US citizen that you had the courage, at that time of collective American panic, to have the ability to do your job: Oversight.
It seems to me that the House and the Senate are failing in protecting the nation from the overeach of the President. I am stunned and amazed at how easy it was to curtail American Civil liberties, the crowing glory of our democracy, without a word from those who are chosen to represent us. What I will never understand is that within one month of 9/11 a piece of legislation over 340 pages long passed without any hearings or without any kind of public process.
Is this how easy it is to destroy our democracy and fall into tyranny? What about the next crisis, how much more will our elected officials take away? It also seems that the Patriot Act was poised at the ready for an incident such as 9/11 to be hoisted on America.
On a personal level, what gave you the courage to buck the panic and vote for the legislation?
December 12, 2005 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome Senator Feingold
More than anything George Bush has done overseas it is the damage he has done to our country that should be most alarming. Why don't more Democrats stand-up for the values of this country such as democracy, liberty and tolerance?
December 12, 2005 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Senator, for your patriotism during this defining time in America's history. Thanks also to TPMCafe for providing this forum so we can exchange thoughts without the normal filters applied by staff offices, talking heads, or others.
I fear that too many Americans are in a reactive mode and are ignoring the big picture. If we lose individual rights and priveledges, it doesn't matter whether we lose them to enemies or to ill-conceived defensive mechanisms. Once they're gone, they're gone. Now is the time to unite, to remind our leaders and our citizens of the rights we've enjoyed for over two centuries, the struggles our forefathers endured to preserve them, and how close we are to losing them today.
There are many organizations and PACs who are standing up to be counted. The momentum is building. I hope we rescue and preserve our way of life before the misguided and uninformed let it slip away. I encourage all to support your efforts and the efforts of grass-roots organizations, PACs, and others in any way possible. Individual voices generate momentum, now is the time for us to post, to speak out, to write emails and letters, to be heard. Now is also the time to diligently watch, listen, and evaluate.
December 12, 2005 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Senator. When you get a chance list the main specific items you are most concerned about. We will be glad to spread the alarm as 21st Century Paul Reveres.
December 12, 2005 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have one practical question for anyone on the site: where can I find the actual text of the conference report.
I second that. I'd like to see the text too. Anyone?
December 12, 2005 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for your opposition to the Patriot Act.
Why should we trust the FBI at all? (Richard Jewel, Waco, Robert Hanssen, FISA non-warrent, Freeh, cluelessness with anthrax, etc.) The rumor of Hoover's political files, the obvious political prosecutions of "terrorists" by the Ashcroft agency, the willingness to suspend habeas corpus (Padilla), the diversion of resources for victimless crimes, and more, all point to a federal agency -- just one among many -- that serves the interests of the ruling class.
All this to protect America????
Why should they get more power when, clearly, they've misused and abused the powers that they already have?
Why isn't their track record part of the debate?
They say, "trust us". No one says, "no." If, by filibustering, you intend to say, "no" then bravo!! Like Sen. Reid's closing of the Senate a couple of weeks ago, you might be remembered as more than an enabler.
Why doesn't anyone label the Patriot Act the Enabling Act since it places all the intelligence gather powers in the hands of the executive branch? (We've seen what they do with intelligence -- a hundred thousand dead Iraqis and a couple of thousand dead Americans.)
I respect your stand. I applaud your stand. I hope it's not a stunt.
I wonder why no one has stood up and called the Bush people what they are -- petty tyrants.
If the best the Democrats can offer are Lieberman and Biden and Clinton (take your pick), then it's no wonder we've lost our country to these Machivellian morons.
December 12, 2005 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not just the warrantless searches. It's not simply the inability to object to them. It's not simply ever being able to even mention them. Although, the Patriot Act crisped every single foundation document in our laws back to the Magna Carta. No, there's worse. We've been hearing recently about secret laws. Secret Laws! What the hell has happened in this country? We didn't have secret laws when the Soviet Union menaced our physical annihiliation. Now, because of a group that could total 100 or so people we've lost any shred of political courage? You're a senator. Do something. Something big and loud and prolong.
December 12, 2005 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Finegold, thank you for having the courage to stand alone against the initial passage of the so called Patriot Act(s), and for your continued stand.
I have been confronted often to, "Show me a way the Patriot Acts have hampered you." But is that really the point?
Isn't it a more proper question to ask, "What limitations do we want to impose on government in order to secure freedom from goverment intrusion into the private lives of American citizens?
When government is given the wide, unfettered sweep that it is given by the so called "Patriot Act(s)" to monitor citizen behavior whenever and wherever it wants, are those citizens really "free"?
And what good is it then to have a Constitution with a "Bill of Rights"?
Am I "hampered"? Yes.
I am deemed by the Patriot Acts(s) as being "untrustworthy" without just cause.
And that is "hampered" enough.
December 12, 2005 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Senator Feingold, for creating some time to discuss the Patriot Act with us here at TPM.
There has been a story getting a little play this past weekend about John Gilmore, an early founder of Sum Microsystems and a long-time Libertarian, and his case to have the courts take a look at the legality of airlines requiring government-issued identification prior to boarding planes.
According to a story in the AP Wire last Thursday, "U.S. government lawyers have refused to confirm or deny a federal law or regulation requiring IDs at airports even exists. Government attorneys say they are barred from disclosing the existence of security-related regulations."
While John Gilmore's case is specific to his single issue, the case opens to a broader issue of "Secret Laws."
Is it true that Americans are now subject to laws that our government made and refuses to inform us about? If so, how did this come about and how does such a process work? Is this an outcome of the Patriot Act, or some other legislation (if so, what?)? Are such provisions part of your concerns about the Patriot Act that you will be addressing this week?
Thank you for standing up for folks like me who care and who don't have a voice in Washington.
December 12, 2005 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sen. Feingold,
Thank you kindly for spending time with us here at TPM Cafe.
In your next post, could you please list the issues with the Patriot Act that you agree with and those that you'd like to change?
All the best,
December 12, 2005 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Any idea what the odds of success are for a filibuster?
I heard Sen. Leahy on NPR the other morning suggesting a more modest 3-month extension for the sunset provisions to give negotiators more time to work out a compromise.
Also, what role, if any, will the late opening of the House to accomodate DeLay have on getting something through.
December 12, 2005 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
But because of your recent actions on the Iraq war, your possible presidential candidacy comes into view as you wage another fight against the Patriot Act renewal. Your leadership stands apart because we are so hungry for someone to show us the way across the desert of George W. Bush’s presidency, not to mention the sink hole that the Democratic Party “leadership” has fallen into, especially recently, as our advantage has turned into Bush’s plus because some Democrats can’t keep their mouths shut. Harry Reid is right, especially where Joe Lieberman is concerned. About now is when I am usually told to do the same.
Your threat of a filibuster over the Patriot Act is the most recent and visible sign that I have been very wrong not to take you much more seriously than I have previously. The House leadership is a corrupt, frightened embarrassment, so I am not surprised about the conference report. That you have gathered others in the senate who now are on your side, with regard to the most extreme anti-American measures in the Patriot Act, shows that people who might have only listened before are now following, because you have shown that you are not only right, but can lead a fight on ground you took long before any of your colleagues had the nerve to take a stand. Filibuster the Patriot Act, sir, if that’s what is needed, before we turn into an America we no longer recognize. Many Americans who may have been reluctant to listen to you before are having a change of heart. I’m just one among them.
"Any society who would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Taylor Marsh
December 12, 2005 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
If it's anything like the original Patriot Act, I don't think having a copy of Conference Committee bill will be very enlightening. It mostly contained language like 'subsection xxx is amended to include the term y between the word a and the word b". If there is a Conference Committee Report explaining what the bill will do, that would be more helpfull.
Maybe Senator Feingold could give us a start?
I also want to thank you from not getting swept up in Bush's fear-mongering to vote for this wish list of the secret police which must have been prepared well before 911.
December 12, 2005 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you so much for taking the time to share your thoughts in this forum, Senator Feingold. I would be particularly interested in hearing your thoughts on the “lone wolf” expansion to FISA that was included in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. Perhaps it is because this provision did not come with the fanfare of the original Patriot Act, but I feel like this radical departure from the traditional application of FISA has not been given enough public scrutiny.
Prior to its enactment, FISA surveillance orders required a showing of probable cause that the target was an agent of a foreign power or international terrorist organization. The “lone wolf” amendment replaces this requirement with a showing of probable cause that the target is engaged in international terrorism or preparation therefore, in cases where the target is a non-US person.
My understanding of the purpose of FISA as originally enacted was to allow the executive branch to conduct surveillance against foreign powers or their agents without compromising on-going intelligence operations. Certainly, this concern is legitimate, however when dealing with a “genuine” lone wolf terrorist there is no risk of compromising such an operation, because the target has no connection to a foreign power or terrorist organization. Should “international terrorism” simply be some sort of super-crime that allows the government to subvert the 4<sup>th</sup> Amendment in the absence of any foreign intelligence interest?
When Senator Kyl discussed this amendment in the Judiciary Committee at the time it was first introduced he pointed to the need to protect intelligence operations when dealing with targets such as Zacharias Mussoui. Cases where we had reason to believe that the target was an agent of a foreign power or terrorist organization, but did not have evidence that rose to the level of probable cause. Since the “agent of a foreign power” requirement was completely abolished by this amendment, no proof of this connection would need to be provided to the FISA court. I believe Senator Feinstein’s “permissive presumption” amendment would have been a suitable remedy.
My concern is primarily with the ability of the government to completely eliminate the notice requirement of the 4th Amendment in cases where this “lone wolf” amendment is applicable. Could a contingent delayed notice provision also remedy at least some of the issues this amendment creates? A FISA order could be issued for a limited duration and if it failed to yield probable cause that the target was an agent of a foreign power, the FISA order would be rescinded and notice of the surveillance given.
Thank you again for stopping by and for having the courage to take a stand on such a critical issue as our civil liberties.
December 12, 2005 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome to the Cafe Senator...
I'd go a step farther...I think all the surveillance powers granted to the government in the Patriot Act should be sunsetted. I don't argue that government agencies shouldn't be able to better communicate. In fact before 9/11 Atta and his operation had been noticed by the FBI and no one "connected the dots". Giving the government additional surveillance powers isn't going to help people connect the dots any better.
Sneak and peeks, accessing people's library and bank records, monitoring e-mails and all without meaningful congressional or judicial oversight is very troubling. Senator Feingold I will ask point blank (without needing specific examples)...
Has the surveillance powers granted under the Patriot Act resulted in any tangible successes in our anti-terrorism efforts?
If you say "yes", I will take your word. And I will have to, because the Bush administration is the least accountable administration in Amercian history.
It is tragic when Americans willingly give up their freedoms so that their freedom can be "protected" by using scare tactics. I fully support your efforts to undue the damage being done to our country in the name of "freedom".
December 12, 2005 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Alien Enemies Act
Contrast to our current actions, which skip the proceeding before a judge and determination of "sufficient cause."
Sedition Act
PATRIOTt enacts penalties of Life Imprisonment, or in some cases a death sentence, in contrast to the Sedition Act's 5 year max.
then
Sunset in less than 3 years, not renewed.
December 12, 2005 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Russ, I have the utmost respect for your efforts in regard to opposing the Patriot Act. One of my concerns since the get-go, as far as the Patriot Act, is that it seems to address things that don't really relate to 9-11. In the initial hysteria to pass the bill, in the wake of 9-11, everything but the kitchen sink was thrown into the Patriot Act, and without substantive review by our elected representatives.
Now, in this moment of relative calm, we should make sure to employ a tighter focus. Not a single part of the Patriot Act should be made permanent, unless it can be shown to strike the right balance between our civil liberties and security. One failing by Congress, in this regard, is the absence, even this far along in 2005, of a complete assessment of how 9-11 was allowed to happen, and why the Bush Administration and law enforcement were not able to connect the dots beforehand. Of course it's possible that, in the end, we could not have prevented the attacks, but only with a full and frank assessment can we determine what permanent legal changes need to be made to effectively combat terrorism.
This great nation is about our legacy of freedom, for our loyalty and adherence to the rule of law, and classical liberal rights doctrine. I will not surrender that to the terrorists, under any circumstances. If parts of the Patriot Act are made permanent that erode our legacy, we will have to commit our lifetimes to assuring we roll them back.
December 12, 2005 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are doing all you can do before the fact...much respect. If our own elected representatives will not stand up for our liberties, and at least debate giving them priority, who in the halls of power will?
December 12, 2005 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
In your next post, could you please list the issues with the Patriot Act that you agree with and those that you'd like to change?
I agree with this. Most people don't understand what is good and bad about the PATRIOT Act and I contribute that to a huge failure of leaders opposed to the legislation. I know people in law enforcement who are inundated with administration talking points about how opposing any part of the legislation is "dangerous". Given that political leaders are able to reach a broader audience than some schmoe like me, it would help if opponents of the PATRIOT Act would discuss the explicit parts of the legislation that are bad.
You can filibuster all you want, but right now, I don't think you really have the support of the general population. Mostly because of administration spin. With the GOP so weak, I'm sure a good communications campaign could put a lot of pressure on vulnerable Republicans to make some of the moderate changes that are needed.
I appreciate the effort on this and don't mean to sound antagonistic, but I can find very few "non activists" that are in grad school with me who fully understand this legislation. And these are people who read several news sources every day. To me, that suggests a failure of communication for PATRIOT Act opponents.
December 12, 2005 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
The original PATRIOT contained a provision redefining any violation of 40-odd pre-existing Federal Statutes as Terrorist offences, carrying life imprisonment.
Among these is the Congressional Assasination, Kidnapping, and Assault Act of 1971, which used to have a misdemeanor provision for "assault without injury," which would cover such acts as flinging a pie in the face of a member of Congress, and then carried a maximum sentence of 1 year.
I convinced representative Baldwin, during the period leading to the original passage of PATRIOT, to attempt an amendment in the House Judiciary Committee's version, seperating out misdemeanors from the broad sweep of the redefinition of these statutes as terrorist offences. At the time, House Judiciary Chair Sensenbrenner promised to go back and re-examine he question the following session, which never happened.
December 12, 2005 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sen. Feingold,
Are you going to be able to accomplish anything here with the PATRIOT Act, or is this going to be another one of those situations where a few Dems "fight the good fight" and still lose everything?
Surely, you realize that 7 to 13 votes means precisely nothing.
And how about Alito? That's coming up in just about 3 weeks, but I haven't heard anything out of the Senate Democrats that might prepare the country for a filibuster or otherwise might help defeat the nomination.
Whether the people of this country will accept this nomination has very, very little to do with the questions Senators will ask him during his week before the Judiciary Committee. That week should be the denoument of the fight, not the opening blow.
Fortune favors the bold, Senator. Be bold.
December 12, 2005 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to get rid of the National Security Letters altogether. We can't let an agency with as checkered a past as the FBI decide when they can invade our privacy without a clear-cut standard (like probable cause) decided by a judge. Supposedly, they've issued 30,000 of these things since 911. Is Bush allowing Congress the information about what these things were for, how they were used and whether they led to any arrests, let alone criminal convictions? My guess is no. That's reason enough for me to toss them if the executive is not even providing the information necessary to evaluate these new rules.
I also don't like the provisions about getting a 'terrorist' warrant through the extremely secretive spy courts, the judges of whom are hand-picked by the Chief Justice with no chance of public judicial oversight.
The reason that sunset rules are put in bills is so Congress is able to oversee whether they should be continued. Without an extremely transparent disclosure of what, in practise, these provisions have meant, how can the Congress perform its Constitutional duty of oversight? I bet Bush has been as secretive of this information as he has been with everything else. 'Trust me' is never a good enough response particularly with this ethically challanged bunch of liars.
Bush has said that there have been over 200 convictions because of the Patriot Act and its progeny. That's a lie. There have been 34 convictions of terrorism-related acts with an average sentence of 11 months. The rest were mostly immigration violations.
The purpose of the Patriot Act had nothing to do with catching terrorists but a lot to do with terrorizing anyone who dissents from Bush's delusional and inequitable policies.
Senator Feingold, which provisions of the conference bill do you find (1) utterly unacceptable, (2) suspect, (3) stupid but relatively harmless and (4) good for the rule of law?
My fantasy is to repeal everything that's been passed or executive ordered since 911 and start from scratch.
December 12, 2005 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
A copy of the conference report on Patriot Act reauthorization is <A HREF="http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2005_rpt/hrpt109-333.h tml">here</A> (via <A HREF="http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2005/12/120905.htm l">Secrecy News</A>).
December 12, 2005 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or since I botched the html, here:
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2005_rpt/hrpt109-333.html
December 12, 2005 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Enabling Act is what Hitler got after the Reichstag fire. It enabled him to do whatever he wanted.
December 12, 2005 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
First, thank you for helping to fix the PATRIOT Act.
Second, I would really like to see privacy protecting legislation that regulated the use and payment of cameras in public spaces. My main complaint is with traffic cameras that apparently are used more for revenue generation than they are for making traffic move more safely or more efficiently. I believe studies show that traffic cameras do not make traffic more safe, and that the vast majority of the funds raised go to the company that runs the camera and not to the taxpayer. I believe that local communitiea are sacrificing MY PRIVACY, just so they can have an off the books method of collecting revenue. I understand there are alternative techniques (increasing the length of a yellow for instance) that have been shown to work more effectively (and at a much reduced cost) than traffic cameras. I urge you to look into this.
Third, I would like to put you on the spot and ask you what you have heard about http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml, namely, have you heard, and if so, where that President Bush called our Constituion "just a goddamn piece of paper"
Thank you (and best wishes in '08)
Jerry
December 12, 2005 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
latewarning, I thank you for the link, but I see what aztec was getting at upthread. It's not very enlightening. A summary is what we need.
December 12, 2005 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Feingold, thank you for your courage and willingness to stand utterly alone with no support from your colleagues.
Please let us know what issues with respect to the Patriot Act that we should express concern to our Congressmen and Senators.
December 12, 2005 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Surely, you realize that 7 to 13 votes means precisely nothing.
I disagree. If you cast your vote based upon your principles and your conscience, whether you win or lose, you have your integrity. It's not only outcome that counts. Sen. Feingold's votes against the Patriot Act and the Iraq War Resolution still resound to his credit today, even though he did not stop the passage of either.
December 12, 2005 12:49 PM |