Meth?

What does methamphetamine have to do with terrorism?

You see, Senator, this is my problem with what our government has become.  The House and the Senate have morphed from bodies that would pass enabling legislation for citizens to bodies that simply criminalize behaviors. 

Now I'm not all about meth and don't advocate it's use.  My problem is with "kitchen sink" legislation.  Sure, riders get attached in Congress just like rock stars specify no red M&M's on the green room buffet, but with something as broad and potentially damaging to what's left of civil liberties, shouldn't the focus be kept on dealing with serious threats from political terror?  My great fears of this assault on liberty from the toadying AG is that the way is being paved for the "Anonymous and Secret Crimes Act" that will result in more American gulags.

 With partisan political hacks doing the interpretations, these inroads into civil liberties will become six lane, one-way thorofares, where any supposed violation of Federal law becomes a "terrorist act".  That is certainly in concert with the Feaver-Gelpi school of thought:  All the administration has to do to claim progress in the "war on terror" (a ridiculous oxymoron at best) is generate statistics about the number of people prosecuted under the Patriot Act- never mentioning the part about them being arrested for turning right on red within three blocks of the White House, or launching a whipped cream pie at Tom DeLay. 

If Section 602 had been in effect in 1968, the entire Wisconsin delegation to the Democratic national Convention could have been charged with a felony after Mayor Daley ruled out of order their motion to adjourn until the Convention could be resumed in a non-policestate environment. "Wisconsin is not recognised for this purpose"

Senator Feingold,

Thanks again for posting. You do Wisconsin proud.

To any poster: Is there a handy source that lays out the differences between the Senate version passed this summer and the conference report? I can do a side-by-side via Thomas resources, but haven't seen a neatly packaged summary. Thanks!

Is there any particular reason this is called "the PATRIOT Act" ?? This is a dead give-away, kinda like "PEOPLES' Republic of China"

Senator Feingold,

I appreciate your posts here. I have already contacted one of my Senators, Lamar Alexander, but I think contacting the other one would be a waste of time.

I have a suggestion for you, Senator.  You could easily slow down the business of the Senate by objecting to unanimous consent agreements that limit debate before a bill is called to the floor. Of course, the Senate leadership can invoke cloture easily on most bills, but it is time consuming.  You could bring Senate business to a virtual stand still by yourself if the leadership does not agree to take another look at the conference bill and make the necessary changes.  

Computer crimes, meth crimes and God knows what else are covered by this (for a lack of a better word) omnibus crime bill.  Senator in theory it isn't difficult to claim any criminal behavior could be "terrorist related".  And all the government needs to do is go before a FISA court with a NSL and utter the word "terrorism" and anybody and/or anything can be investigated in secret under the Patriot Act.

Should computer crimes, protection of our financial network, meth production and distrubtion, and money laundering all be something that our government cracks down on?  Absolutely, no arguments here.  If you were AG I would have the utmost confidence that the powers granted in the Patriot Act would be used in the spirit of the law.  Senator you are not AG and I have no confidence that this DoJ (the same DoJ which overruled their career lawyers in the Texas redistricting debacle when the lawyers said the redistricting was in violation of The Voting Rights Act) will not abuse the powers given to them by the Patriot Act.

The only reason they have put so many "common sense" provisions in the Patriot Act is to muddy the waters about all the very controversial powers in the Act.  I do realize the politics of the situation and undoing the Act is in effect like "tilting at windmills".  But keep up the good fight and maybe someday America will stop succumbing to it's fear come to it's senses...

One question Senator.  You and your other senators have security clearance, correct?  Is the administration, in closed sessions, giving accountability for their actions where the powers granted in Patriot Act are being utilized?

"You [should] not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered."

Lyndon Baines Johnson, as Senate Majority Leader

Because like I said in my earlier post the non-controversial provisions, like the meth provision, in the Patriot Act are there to make the Act (and all the controversial provisions) that much tougher to oppose.  I ask you this one question Reece...

Why was the Patriot Act originally introduced and passed into law?  

I assure you one thing it wasn't to fight the scourge of Crystal Meth...

The Justice Dept. has yet to successfully prosecute someone using the Patriot Act. So if people are needlessly being locked up and brought to trials on little more than "our government didn't like what they said," I'd say that's real harm to them. And real harm to our democracy.

Al-Arian's lead lawyer, William Moffitt, did not call a single witness during the trial, saying that his client -- who was born in Kuwait to Palestinian refugee parents and has lived in the U.S. since 1975 -- had done nothing beyond exercising his right to espouse the Palestinian cause.

...The Justice Department has had trouble winning convictions in terrorism cases. A guilty verdict against members of an alleged "sleeper cell" in Detroit was thrown out last year by a federal judge amid allegations that prosecutors had withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense.

...The Justice Department suffered a similar setback last year in federal court in Idaho, when a jury acquitted a Saudi computer student on charges that he had spread terrorism on the Internet. The defendant in that case argued that he was being prosecuted for views protected by the 1st Amendment.

Here are some additional resources for contacting Senators:

You can use the Congress.org site to send email or letters to your Senators. Just enter your zip code and follow their instructions.

You can use the ACLU Call page, which also gives you tips on talking points.

For those wishing to read current and earlier news stories on the PATRIOT Act, The Missing Amendment has current and archived news sections.  Stories on the PATRIOT act can be found in their Federal Legislation news section, Terrorism/Homeland Defense news section, and Travel/Passport news section.  

The name is an acronym. It stands for Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. Obviously someone thought they were being clever. IMO it is a misnomer; there are few things less Patriotic than this act.

Russ: Just after we last spoke, at the Wisconsin Democracy Project Birthday Party, they held a drawing for a DVD of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." I won, and have watched it twice since.

I found the best moment the beginning of the filibuster scene, when Senator Smith pulls apples and sandwiches from his pockets, placing them on his desk, to sustain him in his marathon on the floor.

Follow that part of the script, and the TV guys may pick up on it, and run the "Mr. Smith" clip.

I found your listing

specific provisions of the Patriot Act that I support or oppose.

extremely helpful! Thank you!

A little tidbit like this was also no slouch:

And don't forget your representatives in the House.  The vote there is not a foregone conclusion.

Finally, I'd like to take advantage of your visit here to say thank you so much for continuing to run for office and by doing so, keeping the independent political tradition of my home state of Wisconsin alive. I know that you do my family and friends there proud. (This transplant to NYC is known to produce woe to those here who confuse WI with MI or MN!)

First, I'm not sure whether you and I will agree on what "real harm" means, but here goes...

I consider it "real harm" if young people are afraid to check out books from the library on sex or sexual orientation or research those topics on the Internet for fear of who might access their records.  Do we know how many young people are not getting reliable and accurate information from the library for fear that their searches will land up in the wrong hands?  No.  Does the threat hanging over their heads constitute "real harm?" In my opinion, yes, as I consider a "climate of fear" real harm.

And I'm sure the Connecticut Library Association would love to tell us  about at least one specific case where they received a National Security letter demanding records pursuant to Section 505 of the PATRIOT Act, but they're gagged from talking about the case.

In discussing national security letters, the Free Internet Press site notes:

"The burgeoning use of national security letters coincides with an unannounced decision to deposit all the information they yield into government data banks - and to share those private records widely, in the federal government and beyond. In late 2003, the Bush administration reversed a long-standing policy requiring agents to destroy their files on innocent American citizens, companies and residents when investigations closed. Late last month, President Bush signed Executive Order 13388, expanding access to those files for "state, local and tribal" governments and for "appropriate private sector entities," which are not defined."

So... do you know where your data are?  Is it "real harm" that private sector entities may now have access to your personal details or just "potential harm?"  I think that the collection and distribution of my details constitutes an erosion of my rights as an American in that it is an unnecessary and unwarranted invasion of my privacy. 

I also consider it "real harm" when people are being kept away from the President just because they have a bumper sticker on their car that indicates that they don't agree with his policies.  The ACLU. in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee concerning Section 602 of the Conference report wrote:  "... on March 21, 2005, two Denver students were expelled from a “town hall” forum with President Bush because they had an anti-war bumper sticker on their car.  The students had obtained tickets from their Congressman.  Officials, including an official who identified himself as a Secret Service agent, told the students that the event was limited to audience members who shared the President’s views and they would have to leave, even if they had no intentions of disrupting the event.  Apparently it made no difference that the topic of the forum was Social Security reform, not the war in Iraq.  Similar incidents have occurred at Presidential visits throughout the country."  

You talk about being "inconvenienced" in terms of airport security.  What about all the innocent people who haven't been able to get on their flights because their name shows up on a watch list?  Is it real harm in your opinion if they can't get to their business appointment or a family event? I think it is. Now you may not think it's serious "real harm," but if you needed to get to a family member's funeral, I bet you'd consider it traumatic and real harm.

We may have to agree to disagree, but I most definitely consider the atmosphere created by the PATRIOT Act to constitute "real harm" to the country whose values we used to respect.  

I grew up in the McCarthy era.  I lived through the Hoover and Nixon mentalities about how anyone who disagrees with us is our enemy.  The PATRIOT Act may have been well-intentioned to protect our security, but I see no compelling evidence that it has really improved our national security. 

And so, with due respect, I think you have got it all backwards.
The burden of proof is not on those who claim that the PATRIOT ACT is harmful, but on those on who would infringe on our core freedoms and rights.  It is their burden to demonstrate both its necessity and its effectiveness, and they have not demonstrated either.

Absolutely.

As if the additional processing time for the NSA supercomputers or Carnivore merits an additional penalty for "lack of convenience" in cracking an email. 

I'm not supporting the Act.  I'm just saying you should have examples of people harmed by it unjustly.

I'm not sure that three people tried and acquitted in the course of four years would be seen as a huge injustice by the general public.  

The 30,000 security letters are in essence search warrants.  It's hard to see at that level what harm has been done to specific people. 

Providing names and specific cases may put a 'human' face on the issue, but it runs what I perceive to be a more serious risk of shifting the burden of proof. Those of us who oppose reauthorization (as you say you do) should not be playing a "defense" game of any sort.  Those trying to justify infringement of our liberties and our privacy should be on the defense.

Once against you (as others) went through your entire comment without a specifc name or a specific misuse.

Well, there are some specific names for you in this article on babies getting caught up in the 'no-fly' lists.   And here's another article naming a  police officer and an adolescent who got caught up in the no-fly ilist. And here is another article naming people who got stopped, sometimes because of their political beliefs. I've seen many other articles naming individuals who got caught up in PATRIOT Act-related invasions of privacy or infringement of rights. I'm sure you can find them if you Google the issue.  But wait -- let us not forget that there are members of Congress who have gotten caught up in the No-Fly List too, including Sen. Ted Kennedy and Rep. John D. Lewis.

Then, of course, there's Colorado lawyer Francisco "Kiko" Martinez.  His story was described in the Denver Post.

Now, what have we accomplished by me giving you some names?  Does it make the issue any more serious or real?  I don't think so.  In fact, I suspect that some people who are so inclined will try to dismiss each case with a casual, "Well,  the harm wasn't that serious."  

It all misses the point, as far as I'm concerned.  The right to privacy is reserved to the people as an unenumerated right in the Ninth Amendment, apart from specific references to protections against unwarranted search and seizure in the Fourth Amendment, etc. The federal government must make its case to infringe or limit those rights, and I do not think it has come even close to meeting that burden of proof.

What does sexual orientation have to do with the Patriot Act?  Do you know lots of young people who are afraid to go to the library or do searches on the internet?  I don't.

No insult, but I'm going to take a wild guess that you don't work with adolescents.  Young people with gender or sexuality issues need a safe way to get accurate information or resources.  Now they walk into a library and see signs warning them that their records may be turned over to the FBI without the library's ability to even warn them.  If you don't think that has a chilling effect for some kids, well, nothing I say will probably convince you, but yes, I worry for our youth that they don't have the same sense of confidentiality in going to a library or a bookstore as we had.

Heck, people can't even go to the library to read up on terrorism without having to worry that their interest in learning more about the topic will be misconstrued or make them some kind of target for further investigation. 

What's going on in our country today is all-too-reminiscent of what some of us lived with in the past.  And I don't want to go there again.   

Thanks for your civility on what is a heated issue.