A blow to the White House and the Justice Department. Roving wiretaps secured by judges’ order? Why, that’s an affront to freedom! IT MUST NOT STAND!
Whatever. Let 47 preening Senators (well, 46, actually; Frist deployed a nice procedural maneuver to keep open the possibility of a follow-on vote) play at being heroic guardians of civil liberties. But keep a running count on how many of them change their votes after the next attack. And there will be a next attack. At which time we’ll be revisiting these issues again.
Which reminds me: there have been no attacks since the PATRIOT Act went into effect—and many attacks purportedly thwarted. But this, of course, is course immaterial to politicians, who are creatures of polls and perception. And right now, a vote against the PATRIOT Act is a vote against what has become a demonized expansion of police and intelligence powers. It is a way to show your commitment to civil liberties without having to show that those powers have been systemically abused. And because the PATRIOT Act’s successes happen behind the scenes and go largely unreported, it is an easy Act to oppose.
****
related: Reason’s Julian Sanchez and Manhattan Institute’s Heath MacDonald debate the PATRIOT Act (2003); expiring provisions here.
****
update: PATRIOT Act opponent Jeralynn Merritt has more
Yup. I hope the next attack isn’t as big as the last, but I’m not optimistic.
If and when there is another attack, Bush still will be demonized due to the fact he did not work hard enough to extend the expiring parts of the Patriot act…..All because of that voting thing they had there in Iraq…..The Dems are going to work very hard to destroy every agenda this administration has, and in doing so they will trumpet their cause “To protect America’s interest at home”…With a little help from the MSM of course….
Wasn’t this Reid’s 3-month extension version that just got shot down? I don’t think Bush wanted it to pass.
I’m not opposed to some rational review and retooling of the patriot act, but damn it if the house version that passed didn’t stick lots of stupid unrelated crap on it, like a mandated registry making it easier to crack down on nasal decongestion.
Funny how the vote changed so radically from the original 99-1 count. What, they don’t like the fact that it works?
TW: National
How <i>does</i< that thing work?
How does the italics tag work?
Hmmm.
And people wonder why I have nothing but contempt for Republican senators.
Here’s the rundown
When the next attack occurs the first political fucks, who voted against protecting ourselves from such attacks, to ask the question “how could this have happened” will be shot for treason.
No more fucking questions.
Minor correction, Jeff, this is a filibuster, a vote on closture, not the actual vote… therefore we can only blame 47 of ‘em
BTW, ed 52 Republican senators voted for the bill (Technically 53 as Frist voted against it, to keep his procedure options open).
The four senators that voted against is an strange mixture of moderates and libertarians: Craig, Murkowski, Sununu and Hagel; missing from this group are some that you’d expect (e.g. the NE senators and McCain)
As uncomfortable as some of these provisions are, I haven’t heard any stories about egregious abuse of the provisions. I do think that due dilligence must be paid, so that provisions are not written in that are over the top. The law should be renewed. Once we get past the cloture situation (if),I think there will be strong support as evidenced by the voting.
The debate is a good one to have, though:
What do you consider too far? Too restrictive? What point do we need to reach before you consider it a violation of our rights?
tw: trouble
Sorry, yes, made the correction JFH. Dealing with a corrupted database just now. A little distracted.
An interesting side note:
Drudge has a link to an article about folks going after folks who smoke in their homes. How much do you want to bet that the same people who are furious with the government about (possibly) looking over their shoulders in a public library have no problem whatsoever with the government forcing their way into your home?
This might bother me more if the government weren’t taking advantage of some of its provisions for use in the Drug War. I am told that most sneak and peek warrants are for drug issues. Speaking of which, they managed to slip in a couple more provisions last I heard to further that moronic policy: “COMBAT METHAMPHETAMINE EPIDEMIC ACT OF 2005” (????)
Anomdebus, first of all there is a connection between drug smuggling and terrorist organizations. Secondly, the courts were approving no notice warrants in criminal cases before the PATRIOT Act was adopted.
It really does prove that “conservatism” has just come to mean “support the Republicans”. Does anyone here believe we would be so sanguine about the destruction of the Bill of Rights if it occurred under President Al Gore?
Principles have no meaning if they don’t apply to us, and no amount of macho posturing about political fucks will change the fact that the USA PATRIOT is an end-run around the Constitution. You either believe in our Constitution when you don’t like it, or your just an opportunistic fraud.
By the way, there is a lot bigger connection between gasoline purchasing and terrorism, and one of the many flaws in PATRIOT is that it allows searches prior to and/or without, court approval.
SPQR,
If there is a connection, it is only because lots of money can be made by it, no other reason. In other words, terrorists can make lots of money at smuggling only because the government set up the profit potential. I could accept these government actions under the auspices of the Patriot Act if they showed that they were following the money to get to terrorist organizations and not just doing business as usual, now enhanced.
Also, meth production is mostly a domestic industry. As such, I think there would be even less of a link to terrorist organizations. That act is clearly a “Look at us, we are doing something” sort of law.
I would agree that type of warrant is not unknown, but do you think it is happening now at the same rate it did before? I would think that absent the Patriot Act, you would have had to have a much higher burden of proof to show why you needed it than now. Otherwise, why do you need it in the Patriot Act? Obviously, to make it more common.
Since they are not making the case that the specific anti-drug actions are in any way related to terrorism, I can not accept the link between your two statements.
What part of the Bill of Rights has been destroyed?
And, again THE CLINTONS PASSED AROUND FBI FILES. THEY USED THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND IRS TO COVER FOR THEIR CRONYS AND ATTACK THEIR CRITICS. But, oddly, no one gave a rat’s ass about it then. Hell, THEY’RE STILL DOING IT—anyone remember Sandy Berger, or that the Democrats in Congress are trying to move Heaven and Earth to keep an independent prosecutor’s report from getting out?
But when the Bush administration tries to fight terrorism, every goddamned thing is the destruction of the fucking Constitution.
PATRIOT ACT = “destruction of the Bill of Rights” (no mention of how, of course. It just is. And damnit, I’M OUTRAGED!)
But city-wide smoking bans, including privately owned bars and restaurants = FOR THE CHILDREN, AND FOR YOUR OWN FUCKING GOOD, TRAILER TRASH
Sorry, but the main purpose of the government is to protect its citizens. Giving intelligence people some of the same powers we give to local law enforcement doesn’t seem terribly crazy as a way to defend ourselves and keep our way of life mostly the same.
Jim would be the first one HOWLING if the “Republicans” let another attack happen; but he doesn’t want them fighting it in a way that matches the circumstances—which, it bears pointing out, our enemy designed to circumvent our own system.
anomdebus is right: any injury to our Bill of Rights was done long ago in the war on drugs. No body of law has been as intrusive. The PA is merely an extension.
What fools these senators be.
“Which reminds me: there have been no attacks since the PATRIOT Act went into effectâ€â€and many attacks purportedly thwarted.”
There have also been no attacks since the tax cuts!