Soon to be extension of several controversial provisions of the Patriot Act, despite stand by Rand Paul, with no legislative debate.
.
The Patriot Act was passed post 9/11, in the rush to combat the threat of terrorism. Clearly, the legislation was well intended. However, several provisions were given an expiration date due to concerns that they infringe ‘civil liberties’ and were therefore an overreach by Government. Legislation which will soon be passed, will extend three of the most controversial provisions of the Act, all which had expirations, namely: roving wiretaps, court approved access to any document that may be ‘relevant to a terrorist threat’, and surveillance on individuals not linked to terrorist organisations – the so called “lone wolf” provision.
Considering the complex issues at the core of this legislation, namely balancing civil liberties against national security, surely these provisions would be debated by legislators? Apparently not.
Congress is currently rushing through these extensions, with the aim in mind of meeting the midnight deadline for expiration. The move came after some nudging from senior intelligence officers (such as the director of national intelligence, James Clapper) who claimed that “Should the authority to use these critical tools expire, our nation’s intelligence and law enforcement professionals will have less capability than they have today to detect terrorist plots”.
Click here to read an ACLU compilation of civil liberties quotes from both Democrats and Republicans following 9/11. In particular, Republican Timothy Johnson warned “be wary of any suggested government action that would infringe on our freedoms. Any encroachment of our civil liberties is a victory for the perpetrators of yesterday’s heinous crimes.”
Yet, ten years on, and some of the most controversial provisions are being extended without any legislative debate. I get the feeling that Jon Stewart, and the writers of The Daily Show, will be kicking themselves that they are showing a repeat tonight.
The effort to pass these extensions came down to a conflict between Republic Rand Paul and Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Rand Paul’s objections to the extension are clearly outlined in his letter to fellow Senators on the 15th of February 2011. He states:
My main objection to the PATRIOT Act is that searches that should require a judge’s warrant are performed with a letter from an FBI agent—a National Security Letter (“NSL”).
I object to these warrantless searches being performed on United States citizens. I object to the 200,000 NSL searches that have been performed without a judge’s warrant.
I object to over 2 million searches of bank records, called Suspicious Activity Reports, performed on U.S. citizens without a judge’s warrant.
It is not acceptable to wilfully ignore the most basic provisions of our Constitution—in this case—the Fourth and First Amendments—in the name of “security.”
Even Senator Reid accepts that the amendment process is proper and necessary. Senator Reid’s comments in the Feb. 15, 2011, Congressional Record: “I will put on the record what I have told a number of Senators personally, and that is that we will, prior to this expiration occurring, bring up the Patriot Act and have an opportunity for an extended period of time–a week at least–to offer amendments and do whatever people feel is appropriate on this bill… Although I didn’t agree that I would support their amendments… that is what we should be able to do, to set this up so they can offer their amendments… we are going to have the amendment process.”
For over 7 hours on Tuesday the 24th, Rand Paul held the floor of the Senate, in an attempt to filibuster the legislation, as it had not been properly debated and amendments had not been offered. However, in a move which should be regarded as the ‘mother of all hypocrisy’, Reid worked ‘some procedural gymnastics’ and pushed the entire extension into a “small business bill” which is filibuster proof.
What makes the situation worse, is Reid’s accusation that by filibustering the original legislation Paul was “increas[ing] the risk of a retaliatory terrorist strike against the homeland and hamper[ing] our ability to deal a truly fatal blow to al-Qaida.” This goes against the fundamental tenants of democracy, as Aristotle articulated “the basis of a democratic state is liberty”. How much longer will rights continue to be sacrificed at the alter of national security? The fact that Senator Dianne Feinstein even claimed that it would be a “huge mistake” to debate the bill (due to national security), is all too telling about the current prominence given to national security to the detriment of civil liberties.
This whole debate reminds me of a quote from Senator Russ Feingold, who voted against the original Patriot Act. He said that “[T]here is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. But that probably would not be a country in which we would want to live. And that would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that would not be America.”
The Bullshit Barometer.
TheBullshitBarometer 