Patriot Act Renewal Moving Forward
Jeanwah
Posts: 6,363
Thursday, 03 December 2009 12:00
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5705-p ... ng-forward
Renewal of two controversial Patriot Act provisions set to expire at the end of the year have been approved by House and Senate Committees over the past month, and appear headed for floor votes in both bodies. President Obama has endorsed extending the provisions.
The two provisions include the “records” rule and the “roving wiretaps” provision. The so-called “records” rule grants federal officials with a court order the power to force private parties such as businesses, hospitals, and libraries to hand over "any tangible thing" they believe has "relevance" to a terrorist investigation.
“Roving wiretaps” allow wiretapping multiple lines of communication without informing FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) courts which specific phone lines or communication media are being targeted.
President Obama has reversed himself on the issue, since he once opposed Patriot Act provisions as a fishing expedition by federal snoops in a December 15, 2005 Senate speech:
If someone wants to know why their own government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private document — through library books they've read and phone calls they've made — this legislation gives people no rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law. No judge will hear their plea, no jury will hear their case. This is just plain wrong.
Obama's 2005 speech was spot-on with regard to the facts. A recent Orange County Register editorial noted that “The evidence that any of these provisions has prevented or deterred a terrorist act is between slim and none — you can be sure that if they had been useful in helping to identify the handful of would-be terrorists who have been apprehended or prosecuted that government officials would have trumpeted the news.” And the Obama administration's own government confirms the Orange County Register's able summary. “According to the U.S. Attorney General's office,” ABCNews.com reported November 30, “there have been 220 such orders issued, but no major case to date has transpired because of information procured from them.”
Now that Obama is in power, what was once “just plain wrong” is suddenly just plain right.
Despite the fact that the records provision has never been used to prosecute any terrorists, the legislation has strong support among neo-conservative Republicans in Congress. "This critical legislation protects our national security, as well as our civil liberties, and the clock is ticking," claimed Republican Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin.
The 180-degree political reversal that has coincided in precise time with the changeover of the party in power at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue by Obama and his supporters has led more honest leftists like Salon's Glenn Greenwald to question the sincerity of statements supporting strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution made during the Bush administration:
I could understand and accept a lot more easily this blithe acquiescence to Obama's record if it weren't for the fact that progressives and Democrats spent so many years screaming bloody murder over Bush's use of indefinite detention, military commissions, state secrets, renditions, and extreme secrecy — policies Obama has largely and/or completely adopted as his own. One can't help but wonder, at least in some cases, how genuine those objections were, as opposed to their just having been effective tools to discredit a Republican president for partisan and political gain.
Some leftist civil rights organizations such as the ACLU and People for the American Way have petitioned Congress not to renew these provisions of the Patriot Act. But most of the political left have simply rolled over now that “their man” is in charge.
Persons seeking limited government, particularly those seeking government under the limits of the U.S. Constitution, must oppose the tendency to secrecy as an essential stepping stone to tyranny. This explains why the Founding Fathers opposed giant intelligence establishments, even in the midst of Indian wars of terror that occasionally resulted in the deaths of thousands and the burning of entire towns. “Every one knows the vast sums laid out in Europe for secret services,” Elbridge Gerry noted at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. But no one proposed then to emulate those establishments here in the United States. That's why James Madison, as one of his first acts as Speaker of the House in the first Congress, introduced the Bill of Rights with the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment contains an unequivocal prohibition against government searches without court warrants, probable cause and an oath. It also requires searches specifically describe what is being searched and what object is expected to be uncovered in the search.
Of course, the fact that no criminal trial has transpired as a result of the records provision of the Patriot Act is hardly a surprise. Anyone apprehended under such unconstitutional standards would never be brought to public trial. Giant intelligence establishments are generally loathe to reveal any secrets, no matter how trivial or how ancient. That's why President Obama recently agreed to postpone declassification of intelligence marked for the public domain years ago by both Presidents Clinton and Bush, despite the fact that some of the information goes all the way back to the Second World War.
Surveillance, torture and detention without jury trials have long gone hand-in-hand throughout all of human history. The Soviet KGB reputedly had listening devices everywhere they could, brought people for beatings and torture to the infamous Lubyanka prison in Moscow and then “disappeared” its prisoners to the gulag. The Nazi Gestapo also had an all-pervasive intelligence network, engaged in torture, and sent millions of detainees to concentration camps without trial.
That's why constitutionalists have opposed the Patriot Act from the beginning. It is a stepping stone to a far more brutal form of government than Americans have historically known.
Thomas R. Eddlem, a freelance writer, served as the John Birch Society's director of research from 1991-2000.
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5705-p ... ng-forward
Renewal of two controversial Patriot Act provisions set to expire at the end of the year have been approved by House and Senate Committees over the past month, and appear headed for floor votes in both bodies. President Obama has endorsed extending the provisions.
The two provisions include the “records” rule and the “roving wiretaps” provision. The so-called “records” rule grants federal officials with a court order the power to force private parties such as businesses, hospitals, and libraries to hand over "any tangible thing" they believe has "relevance" to a terrorist investigation.
“Roving wiretaps” allow wiretapping multiple lines of communication without informing FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) courts which specific phone lines or communication media are being targeted.
President Obama has reversed himself on the issue, since he once opposed Patriot Act provisions as a fishing expedition by federal snoops in a December 15, 2005 Senate speech:
If someone wants to know why their own government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private document — through library books they've read and phone calls they've made — this legislation gives people no rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law. No judge will hear their plea, no jury will hear their case. This is just plain wrong.
Obama's 2005 speech was spot-on with regard to the facts. A recent Orange County Register editorial noted that “The evidence that any of these provisions has prevented or deterred a terrorist act is between slim and none — you can be sure that if they had been useful in helping to identify the handful of would-be terrorists who have been apprehended or prosecuted that government officials would have trumpeted the news.” And the Obama administration's own government confirms the Orange County Register's able summary. “According to the U.S. Attorney General's office,” ABCNews.com reported November 30, “there have been 220 such orders issued, but no major case to date has transpired because of information procured from them.”
Now that Obama is in power, what was once “just plain wrong” is suddenly just plain right.
Despite the fact that the records provision has never been used to prosecute any terrorists, the legislation has strong support among neo-conservative Republicans in Congress. "This critical legislation protects our national security, as well as our civil liberties, and the clock is ticking," claimed Republican Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin.
The 180-degree political reversal that has coincided in precise time with the changeover of the party in power at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue by Obama and his supporters has led more honest leftists like Salon's Glenn Greenwald to question the sincerity of statements supporting strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution made during the Bush administration:
I could understand and accept a lot more easily this blithe acquiescence to Obama's record if it weren't for the fact that progressives and Democrats spent so many years screaming bloody murder over Bush's use of indefinite detention, military commissions, state secrets, renditions, and extreme secrecy — policies Obama has largely and/or completely adopted as his own. One can't help but wonder, at least in some cases, how genuine those objections were, as opposed to their just having been effective tools to discredit a Republican president for partisan and political gain.
Some leftist civil rights organizations such as the ACLU and People for the American Way have petitioned Congress not to renew these provisions of the Patriot Act. But most of the political left have simply rolled over now that “their man” is in charge.
Persons seeking limited government, particularly those seeking government under the limits of the U.S. Constitution, must oppose the tendency to secrecy as an essential stepping stone to tyranny. This explains why the Founding Fathers opposed giant intelligence establishments, even in the midst of Indian wars of terror that occasionally resulted in the deaths of thousands and the burning of entire towns. “Every one knows the vast sums laid out in Europe for secret services,” Elbridge Gerry noted at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. But no one proposed then to emulate those establishments here in the United States. That's why James Madison, as one of his first acts as Speaker of the House in the first Congress, introduced the Bill of Rights with the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment contains an unequivocal prohibition against government searches without court warrants, probable cause and an oath. It also requires searches specifically describe what is being searched and what object is expected to be uncovered in the search.
Of course, the fact that no criminal trial has transpired as a result of the records provision of the Patriot Act is hardly a surprise. Anyone apprehended under such unconstitutional standards would never be brought to public trial. Giant intelligence establishments are generally loathe to reveal any secrets, no matter how trivial or how ancient. That's why President Obama recently agreed to postpone declassification of intelligence marked for the public domain years ago by both Presidents Clinton and Bush, despite the fact that some of the information goes all the way back to the Second World War.
Surveillance, torture and detention without jury trials have long gone hand-in-hand throughout all of human history. The Soviet KGB reputedly had listening devices everywhere they could, brought people for beatings and torture to the infamous Lubyanka prison in Moscow and then “disappeared” its prisoners to the gulag. The Nazi Gestapo also had an all-pervasive intelligence network, engaged in torture, and sent millions of detainees to concentration camps without trial.
That's why constitutionalists have opposed the Patriot Act from the beginning. It is a stepping stone to a far more brutal form of government than Americans have historically known.
Thomas R. Eddlem, a freelance writer, served as the John Birch Society's director of research from 1991-2000.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
I am a big time Obama Supporter- I think all president's have done this....
or
he's a liar.
what a joke this is.
Seriously, it amazes me that anyone thought the new boss would be any different from the old one...
I wish the election day threads were still in the archives.... The eupohoric, self-congratulatory posts made me naseous then, but I think I'd find some humour in them now...
hardly surprising....political doublespeak is as old as politics... This is why the giddy sense of relief at election time was so laughable.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
you forgot about baby jesus
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Just like there's a large correlation with people on this board and blind extreme liberalism
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I hope you're not talking about yourself?
i hope you said teh same thing when Bush was president too. he was doing it just to protect the people
Ron Paul has some excellent fundamental ideas... like straight out pulling out of the war and auditing the fed- It seems like he would go in there and just start firing people, however some of his views would be taking a step back from some major advancements we have made as a country....... I like Paul and I think his head is in the right place....... but getting him elected will be difficult......What do you folks think?
In this country virtually impossible the same could be said for Dennis Kuncinich. The man who would get my vote for sure.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
you do know that Ron Paul is the complete opposite of Obama. the only thing they share (i guess you can say, even thought there is no proof) is that both want out of Iraq.
The Patriot Act infringes on our privacy though. Why don't more people have a problem with this? Because we're told to fear the possibility of terrorists? I somehow don't believe that Obama renewing this act does anything to deter terrorists, yet does much more in infringing on the rest of us.
Jeanwah I feel and understand the dilemma and it hurts. I can't count the times I've been in the cold and the heat years ago protesting this very life infringing ACT here in DC. An act created out of fear-control of it's citizenry and quickly implemented without hardly anyone paying attention as to what it could really do in this country. What's worse is since it's been enacted and made law it's going to be extremely difficult to get rid of by ANY President. So it will continue years in the future affecting many to come whether we like it or not. It just plain sucks.
Now if I was lucky enough to be President and not worried being in office more than 4 years, I'd sign a bill to overturn it in a heartbeat. I couldn't careless what flack I would face we need to get rid of it. However, the sad part is one terrorist event or even the next president and and it's made law again in an even worse form of infringement of our rights.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Presidents care more about their re-election possibilities and "playing it safe" than doing what's right.