Oh No need to bother them, Im sure Sen. FRist is all over them as we post. ;-) (just kidding)
You forgot Frist.
They've detached from the Borg Collective. How do we get them back?
No way...I'm going to send them an e-mail thanking them for voting "no". The Patriot Act is flat-out unconstitutional--& why I'm disappointed that the Act itself wasn't repealed entirely, this is a good start.
We don't need the Patriot Act.
Discrace? We all know the real problem is immigration. Why would you rather cede intrusive powers to the government when defending our borders is its real job? Besides, just imagine a John Kerry, a Hillary Clinton, or an Al Gore with these kinds of powers. Don't forget that one of the proposed "Patriot Act" clauses was a provision to allow the military to disarm Americans, such as was the (illegal) case in New Orleans this year during the Katrina crisis.
The real discrace is on both sides of the aisle for refusing to deport illegally entered Muslims and Hispanics, and for refusing to admit that our immigration policy needs to explicitly avoid certain ethnic groups.
That some members of Congress know certain elements of the Patriot Act are flawed is a pleasant surprise.
I don't mind the way they voted. I look forward to the debate, the amending, and eventually the extension of the Patriot Act.
It is the democratic process at work, and frankly - I like to think that the Patriot Act is not a permanent fixture in our laws. I shudder to think how the Democrats might put the Patriot Act to work for them.
Four sane Republicans, the rest should be ashamed, they are greasing the works for Hillary.
Dear Senator:
Your vote in support of the democrat fillibuster has been duly noted. I wish you were my Senator but take great solace in knowing that I can vote against both my Senators from Wisconsin.
Do what you need to do because the libs are. Release the Barrett Report.
Here's what I've sent to these ash holes.
Ok, so you want to change the Patriot Act even though there have been no attacks on American soil in more than 4 years. Since the amount of domestic terror is zero, how much terror are you personally willing to accept? Will you accept a few car bombings and maybe a national monument blown up before you say "Ooops I guess we cut too deep"?
Sir you are fooling around with the personal safety of my family and me. You and your libertarian non sense are a luxury we can't afford.
Dr. Kevin J. Collins
29 Hartford Street
Staten island NY 10308
I support Craig's position (and he's my Senator). Here's a speach by him on an amendment he cosponsered:
S T A T E M E N T O F U S S E N A T O R L A R R Y C R A I G
U N I T E D S T A T E S S E N A T E
SENATE FLOOR SPEECH
The SAFE Act
April 7, 2004
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have come to the floor, as my colleague from Illinois did a few moments ago, to talk about the USA PATRIOT Act and where we are with this issue that the American people have recognized as important for a variety of reasons.
We all know that following the attack on American soil on September 11, 2001, we produced the USA PATRIOT Act to allow the law enforcement and intelligence communities of this country to move forward and do a variety of things. For the first time, we stepped into some arenas of law that many citizens of our country looked at at the time and said, be careful if you go there for you may well be intruding upon what are fundamental and constitutional rights of privacy with the American people.
I voted for the PATRIOT Act at that time, and I did so speaking to the fact that I thought it was necessary that we move expeditiously to allow our law enforcement community to operate for the purpose of national security. I said at that time that this was not a perfect law. In fact, 253 communities and 37 States later, representing approximately 43.5 million people, have passed resolutions opposing or expressing concern about the PATRIOT Act . Groups as politically diverse as the ACLU and the American Conservative Union endorse changes in the law.
In his State of the Union Address, the President called for reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act . Given the bipartisan opposition to the law at this moment as it currently stands, there are many of us who believe it is necessary to make some adjustments in the law as we move toward reauthorization. Congress, in fact, made oversight of the PATRIOT Act implicit by sunsetting over a dozen sections of the bill at the time of its passage.
The Senator from Illinois and I drafted S. 1709 with this oversight in mind. It was drafted to clarify and amend in a minor way the PATRIOT Act's most troubling provisions so that the whole or even piecemeal repeal of the law would be unnecessary. It was drafted to safeguard the liberties of law-abiding citizens while preserving the law enforcement authorities essential to a successful war on terror.
Late last month, however, the Department of Justice issued a letter objecting to the very legislation, objecting to it before there had even been a hearing on it. Specifically, they objected to the SAFE Act on grounds that it would "eliminate" some PATRIOT tools and even "make it more difficult" to fight terrorism than before enactment of the PATRIOT Act .
Let me be emphatic: the SAFE Act in no way repeals any provision of the PATRIOT Act , nor impedes law enforcement's ability to investigate terrorism by amending pre-PATRIOT Act law. My name would not be on a bill that accomplished those things.
What the SAFE Act does do is clarify and slightly modify several provisions, particularly those related to the use of surveillance and the issuance of search warrants, to restore the judicial oversight requisite to healthy law enforcement.
Specifically, the SAFE Act would impose two reasonable safeguards on the use of roving wiretaps for intelligence purposes.
Before the PATRIOT Act , roving wiretaps were only permitted for criminal, not intelligence, investigations. The PATRIOT Act authorized the FBI to use roving wiretaps for intelligence purposes for the first time.
The Intelligence Authorization Act of 2002 further permitted the FBI to obtain "John Doe" wiretaps in an intelligence investigation without specifying either the target or the location of the wiretap.
Law enforcement is only required to provide a physical description of the target, such as 5¬7", Middle Eastern descent or something else equally as vague, so as to, in my opinion, be meaningless. In order to protect the private conversations of people wholly unrelated to the investigation, the SAFE Act simply requires that law enforcement specify either the target or the location of the wiretap and ascertain the presence of the target before initiating the surveillance.
Far from eliminating the roving wiretap, S. 1709 only makes the requirements for a roving wiretap for intelligence surveillance conform to the requirements for roving wiretaps under the criminal code. Does this tie law enforcement's hands in the way the Justice Department so described it? Hardly so.
In the case of sneak-and-peek warrants, before the PATRIOT Act , there was no statutory authority for delayed notice warrants for physical evidence, although covert searches of oral and wire communications for intelligence purposes were allowed. The Supreme Court never ruled on the constitutionality of sneak-and-peek warrants for physical evidence, and the Federal circuit courts were divided on the issue.
Despite this, the PATRIOT Act granted Federal law enforcement broad authority to obtain sneak-and-peek warrants for physical evidence where a court finds "reasonable cause" that providing immediate notice of the warrant would have an adverse result, including seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial,"--a very broad standard.
The SAFE Act , our amendment to the PATRIOT Act , reasonably limits when a court may issue a sneak-and-peek warrant for physical evidence to situations where notice of the warrant would:
1.
endanger the life or physical safety of an individual;
2.
result in flight from prosecution; or,
3.
result in the destruction of or tampering with evidence sought under the warrant.
Though the Department of Justice argues that scenarios such as a suspect's associates fleeing, going into hiding, or accelerating their plots would be excluded from the sneak-and-peek authority, these clearly fall within the reasonable limits of the SAFE Act .
The Department of Justice also misrepresents the authority of the sneak-and-peek provision when it says that the SAFE Act would "restrict the ability of courts to extend the period of delay" for a delayed-notice warrant. Although S. 1709 requires notice of a covert search within 7 days rather than a reasonable period, it authorizes unlimited 7-day delays if the court finds that notice of a warrant would continue to endanger the life or physical safety of an individual, result in flight from prosecution, or result in the destruction of or tampering with the evidence sought under the warrant.
Far from restricting the courts, the SAFE Act restores what I believe is the proper level of judicial oversight in the process.
I believe the Department of Justice also misrepresented the modifications the SAFE Act would make to section 215 of the PATRIOT Act , which permits law enforcement to obtain a vast array of business records with minimal judicial oversight.
Before the PATRIOT Act , FISA search orders were available for only certain travel-related "business" records--not library or personal records--where the FBI had "specific and articulable facts" connecting the records to a foreign agent.
These orders are available for any and all records, including library records, by simply certifying that the records are sought for an international terrorism or intelligence investigation, a standard even lower than relevance. The court does not even have the authority to reject this certification under current law.
Though the Department of Justice describes the SAFE Act standard as a "much more rigorous" standard, FISA search orders would still be available for any and all records, but only when the FBI has "specific and articulable facts" connecting the records to a foreign agent.
Far from "raising the standard" to a new level, S. 1709 reinstates the proper pre-PATRIOT standard for obtaining a FISA order for business records, and even maintains the PATRIOT Act's expanded definition of business records.
Likewise, the Department of Justice argues that section 5 of the SAFE Act would impose an "entirely new limitation" on the use of National Security Letters.
Before the PATRIOT Act, the FBI could issue a National Security Letter to obtain personal records by certifying that it had reason to believe that the person to whom the records relate is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power.
Current law allows the FBI to obtain sensitive personal records, without judicial approval, simply by certifying that they are sought for a terrorism or intelligence investigation, regardless of whether the target is a suspect.
While national security letters are only to be used to obtain name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records, available information indicated that the Justice Department is using them to obtain other kinds of records, including library records. Contrary to the assertions of the Department of Justice, the SAFE Act maintains the greatly expanded definition of "financial records," and even makes such records available without individual suspicion. S. 1709 only reasonably exempts libraries and Internet terminals from National Security Letter orders.
While I am disappointed that the Administration has expressed disagreement with the SAFE Act , I view this as an opportunity to increase the public discussion on one of the most important issues of the day.
I know Attorney General John Ashcroft. John and I are personal friends. I am not worried about how John Ashcroft will enforce the law. But administrations change. The law lasts, and it is imperative that it embodies a smooth balance of liberty and justice.
I am not seeking to repeal any provision of the PATRIOT Act but rather to salvage it by making necessary, albeit minor, amendments to it in order to safeguard individual liberties while preserving the very important law enforcement authorities it grants. Privacy is a hallmark of our constitutional system--the right of the individual within that system--and what we attempt to do by the SAFE Act , S. 1709, is to assure that when we reauthorize the PATRIOT Act , we guarantee that those rights are preserved.
I yield the floor.
"These people are a disgrace."
Good for them! Read the BOR and Constitution some time.
How about a list of Red state 'Rats who voted against cloture, instead of just piling on the spineless Pubbies?
Tagged for action
The PATRIOT act as written is horrible to American civil liberties.
I would appreciate knowing why Craig and Sununu voted as they did on the Patriot Act. I thought Craig was an arch-conservative.
They should be thanked.
Just called Hagel's office, told them he would NEVER get my vote if he runs for president.