The USA PATRIOT Act

My point on the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (the Act) is that I honestly believe the President of the United States, the leader of the global war on terror, George W. Bush, thinks it truly helps in the war effort. I honestly believe a great majority of Republican U.S. Senators think the same thing. I honestly believe that most Democrats in the U.S. Senate think the same thing but they don't know how to stand up to the liberal national media that loves to hate the Act and the liberal extremists that hate the President. The very worst of the Senate Democrats vote for the Act and immediately pander to the hate-filled extremists; this is not leadership.

These were my words from my January 7, 2006 post that were also included in a letter to the editor of the Boston Globe:

One has to wonder about the education the students at Wellesley High School are receiving when the head of the social studies department, Ms. Diane Hemond, says, "They need to hear the other perspective . . . for them to hear a US Senator (Sen. Orrin Hatch) is great. Because Senator Kennedy couldn't come, we weren't going to cancel the event" in explaining a student protest of Sen. Hatch's defense of the PATRIOT Act (Students protest speech by GOP senator, January 7, B3).

On October 25, 2001, the United States Senate passed the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT Act) Act of 2001 by a vote of 98 - 1, Sen. Kennedy and your other Senator, John F. Kerry, voted FOR the Act. If Wellesley High School wants the "other perspective" they better book Sen. Russ Feingold (D, WI), the only Senator to vote against the Act (Sen. Mary Landrieu, D, LA did not vote) and the only Senator with any credibility in criticizing the Act.

If the "protesters" are really serious about their position, I'm sure Sens. Kennedy and Kerry have local offices where the students, or anyone else truly outraged by the Act, can stage an honest protest. (End of letter.)

On February 6, 2006, I posted:

For those that missed it, last week the United States Senate voted to extend the USA PATRIOT Act for another 5 weeks (while negotiators draft permanent changes for Congress to consider); the vote was 95 - 1. Based on how the liberal media rails against the Act, you would never imagine the wide-spread support the Act enjoys. As with the original vote in October 2001 (98 - 1), only Senator Russ Feingold (D, WI) voted against the Act. I have no problem with what I believe to be the Senator's principled differences. What's hysterical is the extraordinary demagoguery waged against the Act by so many others that still end up voting for the Act. Pander. Pander. Pander. Oh, and how about that 95 - 1 vote? Darn, if only we had a "uniter" in the White House. (End of February 6 post.)

I re-print, in its entirety, the column by Bush-hater, Mr. Robert Kuttner, that was published in the Boston Globe on Saturday, February 18:

The other day, editors of the American Prospect interviewed the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid. I pressed Reid about the difficulty that Democrats were having mounting a unified opposition to President Bush, even on issues such as the badly bungled Medicare prescription drug program. Reid did not respond directly on privatized Medicare drugs, where his caucus is divided. (Blogger's note: Eleven Democrats voted for Medicare reform, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein, CA - see my December 31, 2005 post for more details.)

Instead, the minority leader invoked the bravery of Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. Reid said, ''An example of how people really appreciate your standing up for what you believe is Russ Feingold, the only person, in the Senate, to vote against the Patriot Act - the only person. The Republicans in 2004 spent tons of money going after him on that one issue, and it didn't matter because people believed that Russ Feingold did it because he thought it was the right thing to do." Indeed, last year, when John Kerry carried Wisconsin by a bare 12,000 votes, Feingold sailed to reelection by more than 330,000 votes. ''I so admire Russ Feingold," Reid added.

The vote for the so-called Patriot Act, giving the executive branch unprecedented investigative powers to override traditional liberties, came in the hysterical wake of 9/11. Congress at least had the wit to insist that the act be reviewed after five years. Now, the Patriot Act is about to be extended, with only the most trivial sops to civil liberties. And guess who is all alone, yet again?

Senator Russ Feingold.

When Democrats agreed to support an extension making only superficial changes, Feingold vowed to filibuster. On Thursday, the Senate voted to end debate. Exactly two other senators voted with Feingold (Blogger's note: That's 97 - 3 for those scoring at home.). One was octogenarian Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who carries a copy of the Constitution around in his pocket (Blogger's note: Sen. Byrd is also the only ex-Klansman in the Unites States Senate and he's also the only U.S. Senator to vote against Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas for the U.S. Supreme Court, but the liberal extremists love him anyway!). The other was the flinty former Republican Jim Jeffords of Vermont, the Senate's lone independent. Reid, who so admires Feingold's courage, left Feingold all alone yet again.

The Patriot Act is a long-standing wish list on the part of prosecutors and spymasters who would sacrifice liberties to needless short-cuts: warrantless wiretaps; ''sneak and peak" searches where the target doesn't learn of the search; gag orders on recipients who are compelled to produce confidential medical and business records; fishing expeditions in libraries; and more mischief that violates the intent of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, making Americans less free but no more secure against terrorist attack.

But think of all we've learned since 9/11. For starters, we learned that 9/11 happened mainly because the administration was otherwise engaged. As the testimony of Richard Clarke and others made clear, the administration was obsessed with Iraq, and spent Bush's first nine months ignoring escalating warnings of an imminent Al Qaeda attack. Having the Patriot Act on the books pre-9/11 wouldn't have helped, given the administration's failure to connect dots that were known under existing surveillance law.

Most pointedly, we've learned that Bush feels free to disregard what Congress permits. The original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 gave the government expansive surveillance powers for national security purposes, but retained higher standards of procedure and proof for intelligence data used in prosecutions. The Patriot Act blew a big hole in those protections. But even so, President Bush, in declaring that he can do whatever he wishes as commander in chief, including secret and illegal taps of Americans, doesn't feel constrained by either act. Presumably this war power could also include mass round-ups, permanent detentions, summary executions, anything at all.

What better moment to reign in Bush's extra-constitutional power-grab than when the Patriot Act is up for review? But, no. That might seem ''un-Patriotic" (get it?). As Feingold declared,''If Democrats aren't going to stand up to an executive who disdains the other branches of government and doesn't worry about trampling on the rights of innocent Americans, what do we stand for?"

Good question. As Harry Reid correctly observes, Bush can wave the bloody shirt of 9/11 all he wants; voters don't punish legislators such as Feingold who stand up for principle. One such principle, surely, is that this nation must remain a constitutional democracy. That notion is also good politics. It has been since 1789.

Feingold's courage needs to be honored, not by celebrating him as a brave loner, but by following his leadership. Legislators of both parties need to preserve our liberties, despite ominous claims of permanent war and unchecked power. If not, God save the Republic. (End of Kuttner column.)

The Act has been supported by 98 - 1, 95 - 1 and 97 - 3 votes in the U.S. Senate. The PEOPLE have decided they want this law. I trust my own reading of parts of the Act (HR 3162; section 215 and Sec. 501 seem to be the controversial sections), all but one U.S. Senator, and the President of the United States. The extremists can rail against the Act, but they should honestly rail against the Act by attacking Sens. John F. Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama as well as the Republicans, when they do so. To change the Act, the extremists should seek out candidates who run on an anti-Act platform and then do all they can to get such candidates elected. When enough like-minded candidates have been elected, they can try to change the law. That's how it works in our democracy. Wake me when the extremists find candidates to run against Kerry and Clinton in Democratic primaries. Otherwise, the extremists should . . . well, . . . be quiet.

Congratulations to the President for uniting 97 partisan U.S. Senators on a vote to end Sen. Feingold's filibuster. That is leadership. Just thought I'd point this out because liberal extremists don't seem to know it when they see it.

Oh, and on November 3, 2005, I wrote that Sen. Feingold was principled. I wrote it again on February 6, 2006. Mr. Kuttner is a professional (hate-monger?), Sen. Reid is a professional politician and I'm just "ZACKlyRight" . . . first! . . . again!