What good is it to have a Constitution or a Bill of Rights if the freedoms enumerated in those documents can be removed by the Patriot Acts?

This is indeed an American issue.  Not a partisan one.   And let me tell you that this American stands behind  your efforts, and is damn proud of have you as my Senator.

Thank you for your service and effort.

   Someone should Sen Specter a fruit basket of apples and oranges. He seemed to be attempting to deflect the controversy of the NSL issue. Sen S[ecter is unrealistic to think average folks have any chance to challenge an NSL as it stands.

  Does anyone know if the lawsuit for disclosure under FOIA to the FBI for reports on how the P/A has been used so far is mentioned? It seems that the frantic push to renew in the next few days is another bum's rush with other motives unseen.

The principles of civil liberty are well defined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, yet when we are threatened (by the vague malevolence of terrorism) most of Congress feels compelled to dismantle those liberties to protect us. I feel much safer protected by the priciples of civil liberty than I do by the law-and-order intrusions of the Patriot Act. It seems so ironic that our would-be protectors in Congress would be willing to compromise the very foundation of what makes our country great so they can appear to have done something to protect us. In doing so, they do the terrorist's bidding; they make our country weaker and less noble. 

Sen Feingold: I was able to catch you on C-Span this morning and particularly enjoyed the gentleman from Texas with the heavy accent. I think your answer to his position was worth revisiting. He and so many like him believe that your position weakens our homeland security. I was struck that he wasn't getting the concept that your position is to simply make it a good Patriot Act rather than leaving in place the roughshod version produced in haste and fear. As proposed, the PA stands in conflict with our written Constitution and the spirit of America. We must be better than this proposed Act, we cannot see these rights diminished.  

I caught some of the floor debate this morning.  While there was some good debate, I did not think that anyone responded with clarity to Sen. Spectre's question on "unreasonable" while I was watching.  I want to pass on my thoughts, fwiw.

IMO, Sen. Spectre is absolutely incorrect to state that it is any real protection to have a requirement that NSL's/gag orders can be addressed by allowing the recipient to prove they are unreasonable. 


1.  The argument should be the CONVERSE.  For any violation of our civil liberties, the FBI should be, at a minimum, in a position to bear the burden of proving that they are acting reasonably - there should not be a shift to a requirment the recipient be required to show the FBI is being unreasonable.   Sen. Spectre would, I am sure, find being faced with the converse argument to cause him far more difficulties.  The burden of proof is with those exercising police powers and should not be tipped to be borne by those defending against that exercise. 

2.  His response completely avoids the separation of powers issue.  Would the Senate and House be eager to give to Executive Branch appointees (not even the President, but FBI field agents) the power to supercede and disregard enacted legislation, as long as the actions of the agents were "not unreasonable"?    Of course not. Well, there is no legislation that the House and Senate have or will pass that is as important as the Constitution - the People's legislation. 

The rights granted under the Constituion are not created solely to be disregarded bc someone might conceivably feel that it is *not unreasonable* to disregard them.  The rights granted in the Constitution already have the standards and burdens of proof that are requsite.  The People's legislation, the Consitution, guarantees to the people that the hirlings of the Executive Branch will be held in check by BOTH the legislative limits set by Congress AND Judicial review of actions that involve search and seizure and limitatons on the exercise of free speech, to make sure that those actions are REASONABLE.  We have, for example, REASONABLE limits on the free exercise of speech, not an "all limits are ok as long as they are 'not unreasonable' and were not generated in 'bad faith'" standard.  We both need to recognize the existence, check powers and authority of the third branch, the judiciary, and to recognize the long evolution of standards the judiciary has developed to safeguard the Consitituional rights granted.  The judiciary has the history and the Constitutional grant of power to determine reasonability.  It may streamline the process to circumvent the judiciary, just as doing away with Congress and the Judiciary would streamline things in general for the Executive Branch.   The founders could have given us a streamlined process - but they did not.  If we needed the Judiciary and its review in a simpler time, with leaders such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, we need it MORE, not LESS, now.

It is a far, far different thing to have the Executive Branch be required to take reasonable actions, with independent judicial review of those actions, than to have the Executive Branch be free to do anything that is, arguably, "not unreasonable" and not in bad faith.

3.  Requiring that a third party who is served with NSL's go to the time, effort and expense to defend against the unreasonability of the Govt agent's with respect to those NSL's  results in a) requiring that someone prove a negative which will always be substantially more difficult; b) requires that they do so with the very real possiblity that they will be asked to prove that negative possibly without even having access to the the information that the govt. is using to form its request - so proof of a negative and within a vacuum; c) shifts the burden of proof in favor of the exercise of police powers; and d) makes a third party with no interest in the matter be substituted as a matter of law for the real parties in interest - those whose records will be turned over, etc.  How can they conceivably have the same interests and the same interest in a vigorous defense against the reasonability of the actions.

For many of the other matters raised in general, the truth is that they are often incorrect and specious.  We did not need the Patriot Act to prevent much of what occured on 9/11.  We needed organization of efforts and competence in execution - two things which are still woefully unaddressed and which create far more threats to our society that even the total lapse of the Patriot Act would engender. 

We did not need the Patriot Act for Moussaoui.  Look at some of the whistleblower information available on that matter.  We needed competence in office - a matter Congress, in its oversight and approval powers, is still not addressing.  We did not need the Patriot Act to have captured the terrorists who were traveling on their own passports and were on existing watch lists.  We needed (and still do not have, despite years of having the Patriot Act) a centralized watch list.  We need a sufficient number of properly trained translators.  What has the Patriot Act done to speed up the translation backlogs in the intelligence community? We need funding and appropriate review for airlines to address baggage, bomb, and other threat issues.  We need protections in place for our food and water sources.  We need National Guard troops available at home.  

Moreover, we can no longer rely on our Congressmen and women, receiving their "secret briefings" to ask questions and pursue accountability.  That is unfortunate, but it is the case.  Has Congress EVER received accountability for the Contractors who were involved in the Abu Ghraib torture and who were somehow "left off" the DOD list of contractors?  Does Congress EVER get a credible accounting for anything from DOD?  Did Congress, despite hearings, EVER get a number or accounting with respect to Ghost Detainees?  

If NSLs have been subject to gag orders and intimidation tactics --- how would there be any records for Congress to know about abuses of those NSLs?  Wasn't Congress pretty willing to swallow whole the story from Atty. Gen. Gonzales about library records?  Now, on reflection, is it possible that the Executive Branch provide either incorrect, untruthful, or less than forthcoming information to Congress about that situation?   But isn't it that same Executive Branch appointee situation that Congress is relying upon to "hear about" NSL abuses? 

Our greatest and more pressing needs are not addressed by the Patriot Act in even its most egregious, subversive, intrusive and chilling aspects.  Surveilling Quaker anti-war groups, while terrorist interceptions go into a stack of "translate later"  piles is ridiculous and is not a matter of needing new, more or more agressive legislation - it is a matter of leaderhip and competence.   Of course the FBI and other intelligence organizations  need rights and powers.  How often do they go to a judge, in camera, with a credible national security threat, and get turned down?   Let's try competence in leadership and proper funding of programs that will keep the country safer as a first step, and leave fascist subrogation of civil liberties as the Frist step.