Obama losing ground on Patriot Act

[aaronman]

Liberal Lawmakers Defy Obama on Patriot Act

Defying the Obama administration, the House Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to remove from the USA Patriot Act a tool for tracking non-U.S. citizens in anti-terrorism investigations.

The committee, dominated by Democratic liberals, also voted to amend the anti-terrorism law to curb the government's surveillance and seizure powers.

The bill went to the full House on a 16-10 vote along party lines, with Republicans casting all the votes in opposition. GOP lawmakers said the legislation would hinder law enforcement and intelligence agencies in fighting terrorism.

The legislation would allow the Patriot Act's never-used "lone wolf" section to expire at the end of the year. The provision permits the government to spy on non-Americans even when they're not linked to a recognized terrorist group.

The Justice Department has asked that the "lone wolf" authority be continued, even though it hasn't been needed yet. Patriot Act revisions before the Senate would retain the tool, but the House Democrats said normal criminal investigative tools could be used instead.

Three sections of the Patriot Act expire at year's end, giving lawmakers the opportunity to amend the law.

Congressional liberals believe the act tilts too far in favor of law enforcement and intelligence agencies while failing to protect Americans' privacy against government snooping and seizures.

The bill before the Senate, approved by that chamber's Judiciary Committee, would make it easier than the House legislation for authorities to obtain tangible items, including business and library records, and conduct wiretaps.

In addition to eliminating the "lone wolf" language the House bill would place restrictions on national security letters, which are FBI demands for information that do not need a judge's approval.

Liberal lawmakers argue that restrictions on court-ordered seizures mean little unless there are curbs on the FBI's authority to issue the letters.

Under the bill, before issuing national security letters the FBI would be required to demonstrate that the information requested is connected to a foreign power or its agent.

The bill also would force the government to justify to a judge the need for a gag order, which prevents the recipient of the letter from disclosing it.

The Justice Department inspector general has reported that the FBI in the past improperly collected and retained improper information from the security letters.

The House bill's curtailment of some government authority is certain to upset law enforcement and intelligence officials, but sponsors only need a simple majority to pass it.

The 100-member Senate needs 60 votes to advance a bill, and the compromise bill before that chamber — crafted by Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and others — was designed to overcome that hurdle.

A wildcard in the debate is the Obama administration's Justice Department. So far, the department's only public stance been to seek continuation of the three expiring sections. Several lawmakers demanded that the Obama administration provide it's position on the changes.

The House bill's also would:

_Require the government, in requesting a roving wiretap, to demonstrate to a judge that the target is a single person. This would avoid a fishing expedition that could ensnare innocent people, supporters say.

_Require the government to produce more evidence to a court than currently needed, in order to obtain records from businesses, libraries and booksellers. An even higher standard would be needed for obtaining library and bookstore records.

_Set a December 2013 expiration for the roving wiretap and records seizure sections. Congress would have to revisit the legislation to keep those sections in force.

Obama's masters must be pissed, he can't even keep his own party in line!

[AugustWest]

i thought this was getting repealed? I remember that from some campaign speeches.

[aaronman]

Obama 2003: Yes, I would vote to repeal the U.S. Patriot Act, although I would consider replacing that shoddy and dangerous law with a new, carefully crafted proposal that addressed in a much more limited fashion the legitimate needs of law enforcement in combating terrorism (for example, permitting a warrant for the interception of cell phone calls, and not just land-based phones to accommodate changes in technology).

He then went on to vote for the Patriot Act in 2006.

And later FISA.


And then he was elected President.

[AugustWest]

Originally Posted by aaronman

Obama 2003: Yes, I would vote to repeal the U.S. Patriot Act, although I would consider replacing that shoddy and dangerous law with a new, carefully crafted proposal that addressed in a much more limited fashion the legitimate needs of law enforcement in combating terrorism (for example, permitting a warrant for the interception of cell phone calls, and not just land-based phones to accommodate changes in technology).

He then went on to vote for the Patriot Act in 2006.

And later FISA.


And then he was elected President.

oh yeah FISA that was another one..

i'm sure he will repeal the George Bush/Dick Cheney Patriot Act. It's everything that Obama is against no? It's full of crazy and evil Neo-Con crap and we know he's the total opposite of that.

It's only been a year so we can't complain yet man.
How many years more until it's acceptable to complain about the President of the US?

[Dickie4:20]

At least there are a few liberals with spines...

[Xenomorph]

Fucking good. That patriot act is bullshit.

[yourHIGHness]

some politicians actually do keep their spines in check...

[Buddy Dink]

Originally Posted by Dickie4:20

At least there are a few liberals with spines...

I normally don't like your view points, but I have to say that I like your sense of integrity. You stand for what you believe in, and I like that.

I wouldn't mind our government being more liberal if it was done with a sense of integrity and honesty. Although I wouldn't mind our government being more conservative if it was done with a sense of integrity and honesty as well.

That is why I say fuck politicians and fuck government. Make your own decisions.

Sorry this didn't have anything to do with the topic at hand...

[Locust]

Just to play devil's advocate here..

Imagine a scenario in which two 18 year old guys get caught by the police with alcohol. They are charged with underage possession and consumption of alcohol. One of the guys was caught at a private party that his friend was hosting. The second dude was caught by an undercover officer at Shooters. Do they deserve the same punishment?

The boys are BOTH committing illegal behavior and therefore should be punished the same. One is not allowed to commit a "private" murder; killing someone is illegal all the time. The setting of illegal activity does not dictate whether or not it should be permitted. Along the same lines, anyone caught participating in illegal activity-whether it is private or public-should be forced to face the consequences.

Many people use the same incorrect basis for expressing their opposition to the Patriot Act. The protestors are using their complaints about rights of freedom to complicate the border between right and wrong. In our democratic society, we, the people, decide upon which actions to make into laws. Therefore, it is absurd to think that a person would claim that it is okay to break the law as long as no one finds out. It should not matter when or how people are "discovered" to be committing a crime; they should be punished accordingly.

[aaronman]

Originally Posted by Locust

Many people use the same incorrect basis for expressing their opposition to the Patriot Act. The protestors are using their complaints about rights of freedom to complicate the border between right and wrong. In our democratic society, we, the people, decide upon which actions to make into laws. Therefore, it is absurd to think that a person would claim that it is okay to break the law as long as no one finds out. It should not matter when or how people are "discovered" to be committing a crime; they should be punished accordingly.

First off, nobody should be arrested for underage drinking. That's just another stupid side effect of big government.

Second, the argument is between liberty and security, not right and wrong. There are means of gathering intelligence without spying on innocent people.

He who sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither, and that's the course we're on.

[Locust]

Originally Posted by aaronman

First off, nobody should be arrested for underage drinking. That's just another stupid side effect of big government.

Second, the argument is between liberty and security, not right and wrong. There are means of gathering intelligence without spying on innocent people.

He who sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither, and that's the course we're on.

So are you arguing that we shouldn't have Big Brother watching because you disagree with the laws that are in place? How do you pick and choose between an underage kid who gets drunk and crashes into another car, and an adult who vandalizes private property?

Is giving the government access to cell phone records really infringing upon your inalienable rights though? What if it helps to catch more dangerous criminals, like members of violent gangs plotting murders.

[Blaxmith]

Originally Posted by Locust

an underage kid who gets drunk and crashes into another car, and an adult who vandalizes private property?

Is giving the government access to cell phone records really infringing upon your inalienable rights though? What if it helps to catch more dangerous criminals, like members of violent gangs plotting murders.

first off, there is a huge difference between 'underage drinking' and underage drinking WHILE DRIVING and then crashing into another car. i think one definitely deserves a punishment, while the other one is a social construct that is somewhat arbitrary.

second, there is also a large difference between giving government the right to spy on whoever the fuck they want and giving them the right to spy on members of violent gangs who are actually stupid enough to plan murders over their cell phones.

soooo basically, it comes down to the aforementioned Ben Franklin quote. He who sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither. and that was definitely the direction we were headed under the patriot act...

[aaronman]

Originally Posted by Locust

Is giving the government access to cell phone records really infringing upon your inalienable rights though? What if it helps to catch more dangerous criminals, like members of violent gangs plotting murders.

Maybe in a perfect world...

But if you look at history you'll see that it is impossible for expansive government powers to go unexploited by special interests.

There were 763 "Sneak & Peek" requests in 2008, and only 3 were for terrorism. The vast majority (65%) were used in the war on drugs.

Read here.

Violent gangs plotting murders? They only murder themselves, so why should we bother?

[Locust]

Originally Posted by aaronman

There were 763 "Sneak & Peek" requests in 2008, and only 3 were for terrorism. The vast majority (65%) were used in the war on drugs.

Read here.

The report says the 65% drug offenses were followed by 5% for fraud and 4% for tax offenses. I'd be curious to see what the other 26% were for.

Being against government monitoring because of archaic dumb laws like the anti-drug laws is one thing, but opposition to those laws should be in the form of changing the laws themselves, not by breaking them.

Also, when the Feds get involved in the war on drugs, these aren't small time pot dealers we're talking about. The requests were probably for large criminal organizations that make money by importing heroin and cocaine.

The point I'm making is that unless you run a cartel or you're involved with a lot of white-collar crime, the government isn't going to waste time looking through your phone records. And you'll probably be safer as a result of the government's actions against the people they do bother to track.

Originally Posted by aaronman

Violent gangs plotting murders? They only murder themselves, so why should we bother?

That's a pretty big, and wrongful assumption. Plenty of innocent people get killed just by living in gang-infested areas, or by calling the police when they hear gunshots in the street outside their window.

[aaronman]

Originally Posted by Locust

The point I'm making is that unless you run a cartel or you're involved with a lot of white-collar crime, the government isn't going to waste time looking through your phone records. And you'll probably be safer as a result of the government's actions against the people they do bother to track.

On a moral level I don't agree with the violation of personal property.

But on a personal level, given the current trend of US and world governments from libertarian to authoritarian, I think we should all be fearful of the expansion of state power.

You know the poem "First they came..."? I'm thinking long term.

The empire is going to require more and more from us over time, and a bunch of us won't sheepishly give in to them. When the time comes for secession they would have an immense advantage over the rebels via systems put in place like the Patriot Act.

And since we've all been brainwashed to fawn over Lincoln I'm sure there will be many pawns who will kill for the "Union".