[Peace-discuss] Patriot Act filibuster

[C. G. Estabrook]

[I'm not a particular fan of Feingold (or of The Nation), but
this seems worthwhile.  We should call Senators Durbin
(202.224.2152) and Obama (202.224.2854) and insist that they
support the filibuster. Calls to Feingold (202.224.5323) would
probably be a good idea, too. --CGE]

  Published on Saturday, December 10, 2005 by The Nation
  Feingold to Fight Patriot Act Reauthorization
  by John Nichols
 
Four years ago, when U.S. Senator Russ Feingold stood alone in
the Senate to oppose the Bush administration's Patriot Act, he
was portrayed as a political fringe dweller whose
determination to defend basic liberties was out of touch with
the realities of the post-9/11 era.

This year, as Feingold leads the fight to block a flawed
proposal to reauthorize the Patriot Act, he does so as the
voice of a national movement that includes conservatives and
liberals, Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians and
independents, and residents of all 50 states and the District
of Columbia. And he has enough Senate allies to speak
seriously about launching a filibuster to block the measure.

What has changed since 2001?

For one thing, almost 400 communities across the United States
and seven states -- Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine,
Montana and Vermont -- have passed resolutions condemning the
assaults on civil liberties and the rule of law contained in
the Patriot Act and calling upon Congress to address those
concerns before reauthorizing the measure that was approved
with minimal debate in the aftermath of the September 11,
2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Rarely in American history has a single law drawn such
ideologically, politically and geographically diverse opposition.

The message was heard by the Senate which, during this year's
reauthorization debate, addressed many of the most serious
civil liberties concerns. The bipartisan reauthorization
measure, which added basic privacy protections that had been
proposed by Feingold and others, was approved unanimously by
the Senate.

Unfortunately, the U.S. House, which under the hard-line
partisan leadership of Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, and
his lieutenants no longer operates as an independent
legislative chamber but instead rubber stamps the requests of
the Bush administration, failed to respond to the public
outcry. Instead, it produced a reauthorization of the Patriot
Act that was actually more draconian in some senses than the
original legislation.

That set up what was supposed to be a clash between House and
Senate conferees, who were required to reconcile the differing
proposals.

But, rather than accept the Senate's balanced bill, the
conference committee opted to advance a version of the
legislation that, like the House bill, extends most of the
Patriot Act permanently while failing to address the flaws
that have inspired so much opposition to the law. Of
particular concern to civil libertarians is the fact that the
conference committee's proposal extends several of the Patriot
Act's most controversial provisions by authorizing roving
wiretaps and permitting allowing the government to seize the
records of libraries, hospitals and businesses in "fishing
expedition" searches.

"The conference committee had the opportunity to fix many of
the provisions of the Patriot Act to which Americans across
the political spectrum have voiced their opposition over the
last four years," explained U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold,
D-Wisconsin, the leading Congressional critic of the Patriot
Act. "Unfortunately, they decided not to listen."

Feingold's objections were echoed by the American Civil
Liberties Union and other groups that seek to defend Bill of
Rights protections. "This sham compromise agreement fails to
address the primary substantive concern raised by millions of
Americans, as well as civil liberties, privacy and business
organizations and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle and
in both chambers," argued Caroline Fredrickson, the director
of the ACLU's Washington legislative office.

The Bill of Rights Defense Committee, which has played a
critical role in organizing opposition to the Patriot Act
nationwide, is particularly worried by the decision of the
conference committee to disregard language that would have
protected against the abusive use of so-called "National
Security Letters" -- the documents used to federal agents to
demand the records of libraries and businesses. Civil
libertarians wants Congress to set a baseline standard
requiring that there be a connection between records sought
and a suspected terrorist or foreign agent.

Without such protections, Feingold says, the conference
committee's proposal lacks "adequate safeguards to protect our
constitutional freedoms."

As such, the Wisconsin Democrat says, "I will do everything I
can, including a filibuster, to stop this Patriot Act
conference report." The filibuster threat is a significant
one, as the act will expire if it is not reauthorized by the
end of the year.

Unlike in 2001, Feingold has Senate allies. On Thursday, a
bipartisan group of senators joined him in signing a letter
that declared, "We believe that this conference report will
not be able to get through the Senate, while the Senate bill
would easily pass the House if its leadership would bring it
to a vote. We call on our House colleagues to reject this
conference report, and to take up and pass the Senate
compromise bill. We still can - and must - make sure that our
laws give law enforcement agents the tools they need while
providing safeguards to protect the constitutional rights of
all Americans."

That's the balance that Feingold sought to strike in 2001.
He's doing so again in 2005. The difference is that, this
time, Feingold will not have to stand alone.

  ###