Now might be a great time to become involved with the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, eh?" />
Friday, May 27 2011 - 9/11 Consequences
House approves Senate Patriot Act bill, sends to White House
ACLU article, "Congress Reauthorizes Overbroad Patriot Act Provisions" here.
Now might be a great time to become involved with the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, eh?
By Pete Kasperowicz
The House Thursday night approved the Senate version of the Patriot Act extension bill, a clean etension of three surveillance authorities until June 1, 2015.
The House finished voting at about 7:50 p.m., and approved the measure in a 250-153 vote. In the final vote, 54 Democrats voted for it, along with all but 31 Republicans.
The hastily arranged debate happened just minutes after the Senate approved the same bill by a 72-23 vote. With the House vote, the White House is expected to be able to approve it tonight with the help of an automated presidential signature, as President Obama is still in Europe.
House members rushed to approve the bill before three surveillance authorities expired at midnight, but spent some time debating it, even though the debate covered mostly familiar ground. Democrats generally opposed the bill, calling it something that would extend the government's invasion of privacy.
Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) said the death of Osama bin Laden in particular means the three authorities should be reconsidered.
"At a time like this, we should re-examine the restoration of our constitutional protections," he said. "This is the type of government intrusion which the bill of right was designed to prevent."
The legislation would extend the ability of U.S. intelligence authorities to conduct roving wiretaps, gain access to business records, and survey "lone-wolf" operators, non-U.S citizens believed to be acting alone to commit terrorist acts. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) argued Thursday night that there are problems with each of these authorities.
On roving wiretaps, he said officials do not have to identify the person being watched, which he said seems like a "clear violation of the fourth amendment," which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. Regarding business records, he said the provision lets the government access records without having to show a "meaningful nexus" between the items gathered and terrorist activity.
And on the lone wolf provision, he questioned the importance of this given government testimony that it has never been used. "According to government testimony, this provision has never been used, yet we are told it is vital that it remain on the books," he said.
Republicans, as they have in the past, rejected these arguments by saying the provisions adequately protect U.S. rights. "We need to ensure our security… and we also need to ensure our civil liberties, and I believe that measure does just that," House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) said.
"The terrorist threat will not sunset at midnight, and neither should our national security laws," House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) added.
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) specifically defended the unused lone wolf provision by saying this authority might be used more in the future, especially in light of bin Laden's death.
"While the lone wolf provision has yet to be used, it is an important provision that recognizes the growing threat of individuals who may subscribe to radical or violent beliefs but do not clearly belong to a specific terrorist group," he said.
While Democrats said the death of bin Laden reduces the need for the Patriot Act authorities, Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) said bin Laden's death only happened because of the intelligence network the U.S. created in the days and weeks after 9/11.
"One of the lessons of our successful mission being executed against Osama bin Laden is that you need actionable intelligence over a long range of time that you can connect together with analysis to give you the information that you need," he said. "It doesn't fall from heaven. It doesn't come like manna. You have to go get it."
Senator Rand Paul slams GOP for blocking efforts to amend PATRIOT Act
By Eric W. Dolan
Freshman Republican Senator Rand Paul (KY) lashed out at the leadership of his own party, blaming them for preventing debate on the extension of the PATRIOT Act, which the Senate passed Thursday.
"I've been working for two long days filibustering the PATRIOT Act in hopes that we can have a constitutional debate over certain provisions of it and we can try to reform it to take away some of the encroachments on our freedoms," Paul told CNN.
"Unfortunately, what we're finding now is that the Democrats have agreed to allow me to have amendments but my own party is refusing to allow me to debate or present my amendments."
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Paul (R-KY) introduced an amendment to the PATRIOT Act on Monday that attempted to safeguard American's civil liberties by increasing oversight of government surveillance powers.
The Leahy-Paul amendment [PDF] would have required an expansion of public reporting on the use of surveillance powers granted by the PATRIOT Act. It would also require the government to prove a suspect was linked to a foreign group or power before being able to obtain highly sensitive records.
"If you believe that your gun records should be private and they shouldn't be opened and sifted through by unknown bureaucrats without a judge's warrant than you should call your Republican leadership in Washington and tell them you're unhappy," Paul added.
The Senate voted 72 to 23 to extend the "roving wiretap" provision, "lone wolf" measure and "business records" provision until June 1, 2015. The controversial provisions were set to expire May 27.
The three provisions allow law enforcement authorities to conduct surveillance without identifying the person or location to be wiretapped, permits surveillance of "non-US" persons for whatever reason, and authorizes law enforcement to gain access to "any tangible thing" during investigations.
Democratic Senators Dick Durbin (IL) and Ron Wyden (OR) had also previously stated that the legislation needed to be amended to protect American's from unconstitutional searches and invasions of privacy.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author, who is solely responsible for its content, and do not necessarily reflect those of 911Truth.org. 911Truth.org will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.
Fair Use Notice
This page contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political issues relating to alternative views of the 9/11 events, etc. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.