thinks official wrongdoing should always go unpunished

I think the bigger problem is that he doesn't see it as wrongdoing.  

Posted at December 24, 2005 11:14 AM in response to Checks and Balances

Kudos to you, Senator Feingold, and to all those who refused to be  rushed into voting on a compromise that provides less protection than Americans deserve and need. 

Thumbs up to Senators Specter and Leahy for the dignified and responsible way that they each articulated their points and position while respecting each other's viewpoints.

Thumbs down to Senator Frist for misrepresentation. An extension is certainly a viable option and for him to simply parrot the President and try to shove Bush's agenda down the Senate's collective throat makes me wonder how he sees his responsibility -- is it to truly lead the Senate into being the best that it can be in service of the public or is it to be the President's lobbyist? As a leader, he should have been the first to note that whether the President signs an extension or not is the President's decision, but that the Senate will not be bullied or extorted.

Protect our Right to Privacy: TheMissingAmendment.org 

Posted at December 16, 2005 12:13 PM in response to PATRIOT UPDATE

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.

Posted at December 13, 2005 4:59 PM in response to Update on the PATRIOT Act

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.

Posted at December 13, 2005 11:54 AM in response to Update on the PATRIOT Act

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.  

Posted at December 13, 2005 10:46 AM in response to Update on the PATRIOT Act

Try this summary. 

Posted at December 13, 2005 10:33 AM in response to Update on the PATRIOT Act

Maybe this will help a bit as it explains what's new, what's different, etc.:

PATRIOT Act Conference Report Section by Section Summary
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/patmgrsstate12805.pdf

Posted at December 13, 2005 6:18 AM in response to Fixing The Patriot Act -- Fighting Terrorism While Protecting Our Freedoms