PATRIOT ACT UPDATE
Yesterday there was a press conference opposing the Patriot Act reauthorization bill headlining Bob Barr and the ACLU, an impromptu debate between Senator Specter and me, and announcements from Senators Reid and Leahy that they will oppose cloture. Today, the Senate may formally take up the conference report. Sen. Frist announced on the floor this morning that he will seek a time agreement to limit debate on the Patriot Act in the Senate. I will object to that. Extended debate on this reauthorization bill is needed.
I plan to speak on the floor at length at some point today. I will try to give you a heads up on the timing of that speech.*
This morning, the SAFE Act cosponsors released a "Dear Colleague" letter, laying out our objections to the conference report and pledging to vote against cloture. You'll see some new names on this letter - including Republican Senator Chuck Hagel.
Attorney General Gonzales has a Patriot Act op-ed in today's Washington Post. As you can see, it's filled with more of the same misleading rhetoric that the administration and the leadership in the House have been pushing in recent weeks. It fails to discuss the responsible, compromise bill that passed the Senate without a single objection earlier this year. And, rather than talk about the controversial, intrusive provisions of the Patriot Act, it focuses on the provisions that everyone supports.
Please continue to contact your Senators to urge them to oppose cloture and insist that a Patriot Act reauthorization bill include the modest but crucial reforms that we have recommended and keep sharing your thoughts with me here.
*UPDATE (6:11 PM) Senator Feingold is going to the Senate floor right now to give a lengthy speech on the Patriot Act. You can read the prepared version here. He is also scheduled to appear on C-SPAN tomorrow morning from 8:00
Attorney General Gonzales has a Patriot Act op-ed in today's Washington Post. As you can see, it's filled with more of the same misleading rhetoric that the administration and the leadership in the House have been pushing in recent weeks.
From the very first sentence, Gonzales begins the fearmongering.
Yes, we all know that if we don't have a Patriot Act, terrorists are going to come and kill every single one of us.
Wouldn't it be great the Bush Administration and the Republicans would have a debate, instead of invoking 9/11 and calling it a day?
December 14, 2005 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sen. Frist announced on the floor this morning that he will seek a time agreement to limit debate on the Patriot Act in the Senate. I will object to that. Extended debate on this reauthorization bill is needed.
I hope you are successful in your effort to make sure there is a vigorous in depth debate Senator. I get the feeling the other side tries to limit debate when they don't want the facts, which don't support their policies, to be discussed in depth.
This morning, the SAFE Act cosponsors released a "Dear Colleague" letter, laying out our objections to the conference report and pledging to vote against cloture. You'll see some new names on this letter - including Republican Senator Chuck Hagel.
I am very encouraged that Hagel is on board. Your efforts and support of your position is definitely bi-partisan. I found all of Senator Sessions arguments on The News Hour last night to be unfounded. Even on his own side his position is in the minority.
As far as the AG's editorial is concerned I think cscs in post #1 was completely accurate...it is all about scaring the American people into support for this bill all the while downplaying the threat the Patriot Act represents to our freedoms if left as is. I am fully behind your efforts Senator. Thank you...
December 14, 2005 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Business transparency amendments that give business the right of first refusal regarding discolsure of requested information is the easy out for the Culture of Corruption.
This will let DeLay and Dukestir get away as well.
Perhaps a bill should be attached to fully investigate the FEMA response and why a pregnant woman lost her child staying in a tent city instead of getting livable shelter and potable water.
The FBI has the kind of resources to investigate such. Homicide charges are a capital offense. State agencies should fully cooperate.
Take off the kid gloves with these traitors. Don't mince words.
If Senator Specter would care to discuss the FEMA mismanagement. There's a vested interest he's got conflicts with in that. Or at least he knows who the conflicts lie with(hint: White House).
December 14, 2005 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The first refusal section allows Frist the easy out on his ongoing insider trading scandal as such he should not be allowed to vote upon its passage.
December 14, 2005 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
President Bush urged against any delay in Senate action. “The Patriot Act is essential to fighting the war on terror and preventing our enemies from striking America again,” he said in a statement. “In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment.”
Yeah, we've got fearmongering.
December 14, 2005 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is the key passage in Gonzales' piece:
.During this important debate, Republicans and Democrats have discovered that concerns raised about the act's impact on civil liberties, while sincere, were unfounded. There have been no verified civil liberties abuses in the four years of the act's existence.
This is the basic playbook of the Repuglicans (again I call them that as long as they continue their policy of systematically using the epithet 'Democrat' Party, a practice which has been widely practice for decades while Democrats have, without excuse or justification, simply sat back and said next to nothing). It is precisely what a follow-up to the 'Dear Colleague' letter should address head on. The notion that the provisions require reauthorization right away is another key component of their strategy. It would be interesting to see the Repuglicans vote down a 90-day extension of the Patriot Act, showing that they merely want to create an emergency and exploit it. Sound familiar?
First area of challenge is, which Democrats and Repuglicans have discovered that their concerns were 'unfounded'. I suspect it was mainly Repuglicans, who only went along with the unanimous bill as a matter of image-preening, knowing that the House would "take care of" the bill in conference, which they did. But smoking out especially any Democrats, and I would wonder who they are, who would back up this assertion would be another tactic (yeah, I'm more aggressive and less collegial than the Senatorial type of person) that could produce interesting results. After all, the one thing the Repuglicans have is party discipline. It's time for the Democrats to have some too. (A statement from virtually every Democrat in the Senate that they themselves have not discovered their concerns to be unfounded would be a powerful point in the debate.)
Then there is the slippery use of the term 'verified'. I am sure that somewhere, probably SAFE people have gathered together some compendium of violations. What is "verified"? When the Repuglican dominated judiciary agrees? So only if the Repuglican judiciary agrees that there has been a violation has there been one. And if there were no 'verified' violations, how come whole provisions of the law have been overruled or modified? Isn't that "verification" of the existence of a violation in the law? Or is it that there are (catch-22) no "verified" violations in what remains of the Act, since any "verified" violations intrinsic to it would result in removal or modification of the offending portions?
The litany of shortcomings of this "compromise" bill is appalling. I stand by everything I said before about Specter and the mistrust I have for so-called "moderate" Repuglicans like him.
December 14, 2005 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where does Hagel actually stand on this? I know he signed the letter, but he also signed Bill Frist's cloture petition. Let's hope he's on our side.
December 14, 2005 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just called both of my senators (MA) and urged them to support you. Here's hoping they do. Keep up the great work.
December 14, 2005 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Made the local fishwrap/birdcage page:
<i>(author's note: they gave the headline for this, the Act can be passed in specific, narrow instances but the title supports the bodt of content in spirit)</i>
<b>Patriot Act should not be renewed</b>
"Oppose the Patriot Act's most vage sections. There should be due process and specific actions all within the regular procedures of law that can help but not exclude the prompt use of judicial oversight. It's not America's fault that there is scant record of in a court of law for the Bush administration's use of torture and end runs around the rule of law."
"The lack of merit at the top of the Bush administration is the reason we've developed such a sense of fear. Had they acted when warned we'd not be in this situation regarding the fear of 9-11's spectre, had they listened to truth tellers within the intelligence community, this war would not have been in the wrong place and time to distract us from Osama bin Laden's capture."
Chris Murphy
Blytheville
(sent to Rep. Berry and Sens Lincoln-Lambert and Pryor)
December 14, 2005 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink