Agreement reached on Patriot Act

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11257992/

Updated: 2:56 p.m. ET Feb. 9, 2006

WASHINGTON - Several Senate Republicans who are key to extension of the terror-fighting Patriot Act have reached a tentative agreement with the White House on a compromise version, congressional officials said Thursday.

Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H. and three other GOP lawmakers who had been at odds with the Bush administration on a long-term extension of this key law were expected to announce details of the accord later Thursday.

No immediate details were available on the changes they wrung from the White House. These Republicans had joined a Democratic-led filibuster late last year that blocked passage at the time of a bill extending the life of the law. Critics claimed that the versions before Congress would have given shortshrift treatment to civil liberties.

Instead of a long-term extension, lawmakers decided to extend the government’s power to conduct surveillance against suspected terrorists with a short-term bill. The current extension expires March 10.

[mattclearing]

1. self-delete.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

2. C'est la vie...

...it's MSNBC's headline, and the LBN rules call for posting the headline "as is"...

[mattclearing]

4. Yeah, I know, I wasn't criticizing the OP.

But I was wrong. I misread it. Hence the self-delete. My bad.

[merwin]

6. You could always add (Dems not included) to the end or something.

Additions are OK as long as they help explain.

[Mass]

3. No, it is an agreement on the bill, but only between Republicans

The article does not say anything about Democrats.

[mattclearing]

5. Yeah, I got that. I've deleted my message.

My mistake.

[OKNancy]

7. Kick

[Wordie]

8. Deal Could Break Deadlock in Senate on Patriot Act (not a done deal yet)

(Mods please note: the other thread on this topic has a misleading headline, saying that agreement has been reached, which suggests that there will be no more discusson or fight on the Patriot Act. As that is not the case, I would appreciate it if this article is allowed to remain, as it presents a more accurate subject line. Thanks. -Wordie)

Please note that the filibuster of Dec. 16 succeeded in the Senate by a vote of 52-47. According to earlier reports, there are now four Republicans that have defected. As the original filibuster vote was eight votes short of the 60 needed to end the filibuster, that means that if all the Senators who originally supported the filibuster were to do so again, the Patriot Act would still be blocked by a margin of 4 votes.

Deal Could Break Deadlock in Senate on Patriot Act

By DAVID STOUT
Published: February 9, 2006

WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 — Several Senate Republicans who have been fighting for changes in the USA Patriot Act have reached a compromise with the White House on extending the anti-terrorism law, Congressional officials said today.

The Democratic-Republican Senate alliance was big enough to block extension of the act through a filibuster, a parliamentary delaying technique that requires 60 of the 100 Senate votes to break.

In mid-December, the House passed a measure to make 14 of the expiring provisions permanent. But the remaining two provisions have been sticking points in the Senate. One gives the federal government the power to demand access to library records, and the other gives the government the authority to demand records without a judge's approval through a "national security letter," or administrative subpoena.

...But Mr. Feingold said before this afternoon's news conference that he would not be part of the deal about to be announced. "The few minor changes that the White House agreed to do not address the major problems with the Patriot Act that a bipartisan coalition has been trying to fix for the past several years," he said. "I will continue to strongly oppose, and use every option at my disposal to stop, any reauthorization of the Patriot Act that does not protect the rights and freedoms of law-abiding Americans with no connection to terrorism."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/politics/09cnd-patriot.html?hp&ex=1139547600&en=4017e066e7fa44d2&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Another article is here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11257992

Please note that the filibuster of Dec. 16 succeeded in the Senate by a vote of 52-47. According to earlier reports, there are now four Republicans that have defected. As the original filibuster vote was eight votes short of the 60 needed to end the filibuster, that means that if all the Senators who originally supported the filibuster were to do so again, the Patriot Act would still be blocked by a margin of 4 votes.

[shraby]

9. I always thought that the house and senate

worked out the details of something like that and if the prez doesn't like it, he doesn't sign it..they don't ask the prez. to help legislate a bill.

[Wordie]

10. Most of the msm reports are treating this as if it's now settled!

But is it?

[rodeodance]

11. here is Russ F. statement. -- he wants it stopped.

Critics said the changes were cosmetic. "A few insignificant changes just doesn't cut it," Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, said in a statement. "I cannot support this deal, and I will do everything I can to stop it." The administration would still have the power to obtain information about terror suspects who use libraries to gain access to the Internet by seeking that information not directly from libraries, but from their Internet service providers.

[rodeodance]

12. i do not see the new 'disruptor" provision mentioned. guess not important.

[louis-t]

13. Did they leave in the part about "non-approved signs"

in close proximity to the king?

[IndianaGreen]

14. Russ Feingold: Patriot Act Deal Falls Short on Protecting Freedoms

I think we found our Lion of Judah to lead us to victory in 2008! Enough of these weenies that won't confront Bush!

Fact Sheet From U.S. Senator Russ Feingold

On How the Patriot Act Deal With the White House Falls Short on Protecting Freedoms

The White House has agreed to only a few minor changes to the Patriot Act conference report -- the same report that could not get through the Senate back in December. These changes do not address the major problems with the Patriot Act that a bipartisan coalition has been trying to fix for the past several years. Senator Feingold strongly opposes this deal, and any reauthorization of the Patriot Act that does not protect the rights and freedoms of law-abiding Americans with no connection to terrorism.

Critical Areas Where the Deal with the White House Falls Short:

Section 215 (“Library and Business Records”)
This deal does not prevent the government from obtaining the library, medical and other sensitive business records of people with no link to suspected terrorists.

Background: The deal struck with the White House leaves this provision unchanged from the conference report that failed to get through the Senate in December. The Senate bill that passed by unanimous consent in July 2005 would have ensured that the government cannot obtain the sensitive, personal records of Americans with no connection whatsoever to a terrorist or spy or their activities. The conference report replaces the Senate test with a low standard – the records just have to be “relevant” to a terrorist investigation, which is not adequate protection against a fishing expedition.

Gag Orders
This deal does not provide meaningful judicial review of the gag orders associated with Section 215 business records orders and National Security Letters.

Background: People who receive demands for documents under the Patriot Act are subject to a “gag order.” The deal includes a provision allowing recipients of Section 215 gag orders to challenge those orders in court, but it does not guarantee meaningful judicial review. Under the deal, review of business record orders could only take place after a year has passed and could only be successful if the recipient proves that the government has acted in bad faith. The deal ignores the serious First Amendment problem with the gag rule under current law.

“Sneak and Peek” Searches
This deal does not ensure that when government agents secretly break into the homes of Americans to do a so-called “sneak and peek” search, they tell the owners of those homes in most circumstances within seven days, as courts have said they should, and as the Senate bill did.

Background: This provision remains unchanged from the conference report that failed to get through the Senate in December.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/06/02/20060210.html