[Peace-discuss] PATRIOT Act To Be Quietly Renewed

[C. G. Estabrook]

	PATRIOT Act To Be Quietly Renewed
	Written by Kelly Holt
	Saturday, 15 January 2011 13:10

Mike RogersThe controversial USA PATRIOT Act (Uniting and Strengthening America 
by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism 
Act), signed into law in 2001, is quietly up again for renewal. The Raw Story 
reports that Representative Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) has introduced a bill intended 
to “renew controversial provisions of the Bush administration's USA Patriot Act 
that are due to expire this year."

In spite of FBI misuses of National Security Letters (NSLs) authorized by the 
Act — which allow the FBI to search telephone, e-mail, medical and financial 
records without a court order — and candidate Obama’s promise to support 
revisions that would strengthen civil liberties and prevent abuses, cases of 
federal intrusions are continuing to mount, including more warrantless searches 
of homes and businessses without the knowledge of the owner or resident.
Originally, the Act was billed as a temporary measure, but opponents feared that 
executive power once given is seldom relinquished, so Congress crafted “sunset” 
provisions that were promptly ignored by lawmakers as they voted for subsequent 
extensions of what Congressman Ron Paul has called "police-state legislation." 
Rogers’ bill, introduced January 5, reflects no significant reforms to the 
extension passed last year, and according to the Raw Story, its passage is likely.

Opponents’ fears have proven to be well founded. Obama had promised that if he 
were elected President, there would be “no more NSL’s to spy on citizens who are 
not suspected of a crime” because “that is not who we are, and it is not what is 
necessary to defeat the terrorists.” Yet he voted in favor of extensions in 
2005, and he promoted the extensions in both 2008 and again last year. FBI and 
Department of Justice officials have argued that restricting blanket authority 
to conduct the warrantless searches authorized by the Act would harm national 
security.

The New York Times for January 11 reported the case of just such a warrantless 
search. An NSL was issued to Twitter, demanding that the site provide account 
details of users connected to the Julian Assange WikiLeaks case. The government 
was seeking information on users without a court order. Although Twitter 
challenged the order and won, other sites have given in to similar demands by 
the federal government.

Julian Sanchez of the Cato Institute observed,

Given the very limited number of days Congress has in session before the current 
deadline, and the fact that the bill’s Republican sponsor is only seeking 
another year, I think it’s safe to read this as signaling an agreement across 
the aisle to put the issue off yet again. In the absence of a major scandal, 
though, it’s hard to see why we should expect the incentives facing legislators 
to be vastly different a year from now. I’d love to be proven wrong, but I 
suspect this is how reining in the growth of the surveillance state becomes an 
item perpetually on next year’s agenda.

In an expressed desire by the Founders to establish each of the first ten 
amendments as constitutionally guaranteed, inviolable, and untouchable, the 
preamble to the Bill of Rights includes the phrase,

Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the 
Constitution expressed a desire in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of 
its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added....

The Fourth of those restrictive clauses, the Fourth Amendment reads,

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and 
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and 
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or 
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the 
persons or things to be seized.

All member of Congress and the President have sworn an oath to uphold the 
Constitution. Yet it seems that Representatives will keep extending the PATRIOT 
Act until enough of their constituents put pressure on them to repeal it.