Feingold says he can vote for the Patriot Act as it goes out of committee

[Mass]

http://wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=41100


U.S. Sen. Feingold: Statement at the Senate Judiciary Committee Markup on the Patriot Act Reauthorization
7/21/2005

Contact: Trevor Miller [phone]

Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words about this bill and about the compromise that was worked out late last night. Thanks in large part to your leadership, I believe the end result of the negotiations process has been a positive one – and one that I can support.

As introduced, your bill made progress in the right direction. I appreciated that you drafted reauthorization legislation that made improvements to existing law, and that did not contain the most troublesome expansions of the Patriot Act that we have seen in some other proposals.

But I could not have supported your bill without additional changes on the key issues that I and others have been concerned about.

The compromise that you laid out last night does not address everything that I would have liked to have seen revised in this bill. Nor am I happy with some of the changes made in response to requests from some of my colleagues on the other side of the room. But the compromise does address the core concerns that I and others have had about the standard for Section 215 orders, about sneak and peek search warrants, and about meaningful judicial review of Section 215 orders and National Security Letters, including judicial review of the gag rule. It does not go as far on any of these issues as the SAFE Act does, but it does make meaningful changes to current law.

Mr. Chairman, I will join the members of this Committee in reporting this bill to the floor in its current form. It is not a perfect bill from my point of view, but it is a good bill. It addresses a number of the concerns that I have been talking about since October 2001 when the Senate first considered the Patriot Act on the floor. We have come a long way since that night, and I am grateful for your efforts to listen to and try to deal with the civil liberties concerns that have been raised both here in the Senate and around the country.

I want to be clear that this will not be the end of my efforts to further fix the Patriot Act. This bipartisan compromise takes a big step in the right direction, and I am pleased that I can support it, but I will continue to push for additional changes to the law.

Also, just let me add one word of caution. In 2001, the House Judiciary Committee reached a bipartisan agreement on a version of the Patriot Act. Every member of that Committee, spanning a huge swath of the ideological spectrum voted for that bill. But when the bill went to the floor, the House leadership took up a very different bill. The Committee got rolled. It is my strong hope that this bipartisan effort doesn’t suffer a similar fate. We know that the House bill being considered today is very different from this one. And our own Intelligence Committee also reported a very different bill. We need to fight for this bill and I hope that if we work together we can succeed.

[roguevalley]

1. anyone who votes for this is a traitor to the constitution. Any version

of it is unacceptable to me.

[indepat]

3. Sums it up succinctly: t-r-a-i-t-o-r

[gizmo1979]

4. you're calling Feingold a traitor?

He got the best he could hope for through compromise and for that he's a traitor?He's far from a traitor he is one of the few men with a conscience left in the senate,you can do much worse than Feingold.

[Telly Savalas]

14. Calling Russ Feingold a traitor wins the award for the dumbest thing...

posted on DU this week. Questioning the guy's judgement on this matter is fine, but to accuse a guy of being a traitor is flat out fucking stupid.

[gizmo1979]

21. couldn't agree more.

[Telly Savalas]

17. So I take it you've read the bill and can name the specific provisions

that are traitorous to the constitution.

[blm]

19. They don't understand that senators were working for a few years to CHANGE

the onerous aspects of the Patriot Act while maintaining the part of its muscle that was needed.

Those doing the actual negotiating on it will get skewered for compromising, just as those who took on the negotiations for IWR were roundly dumped on unfairly. People were completely oblivious to the fact that the negotiators got a BETTER resolution than Bush wanted.

But, the price of negotiating and getting some changes is that you support the bill.

I can appreciate Feingold's position.

[PDittie]

2. Isn't Feingold the only Senator

who voted against PATRIOT in 2001?

And he's OK with this version? :wtf:

[hopein08]

5. Come on Russ...don't fall in with that...

"something's better than nothing, I'll go with this now and fix it later" crowd.

The first sign of presidential ambitions is caving on things which one once stood strongly for. Methinks a certain Wisconsin senator (and I clearly don't mean Kohl) is going to run for president and is being to position himself. Two things lead me to think this...

1. Feingold has always been steadfastly anti-PAC and now he has the Progressive Patriots Fund, ostensibly so that he can raise money to travel and spread the Democratic message. I'm almost fell for that but then...

2. This caving on the Patriot Act. Does he honestly believe that the same thing won't happen again with the House leadership? If that's what he honestly believes, maybe he shouldn't be president because that is a pipe dream.

Come on Russ...please don't let me down.

[OneBlueSky]

6. this is what infuriates me about our "good" senators and reps . . .

on the "social" issues, they're all golden . . . but when it comes to the votes that REALLY count, many (and in some cases all) of them fall right in line behind BushCo and their own corporate sponsors . . . the war, bankruptcy, the Patriot Act . . . on all of the issues that really matter to the very existance of our democracy, our "good" guys and gals are as traitorous as the worst Repugs . . . and you can bet your last dollar that the same thing is going to happen with the latest issue that really counts: the Roberts nomination . . .

it also annoys be no end that, when you point this fact out and are therefore critical of our "leaders," you get blasted with accusations of disloyalty to the cause, or some such shit . . . but facts are facts, and the fact is that where it REALLY counts, the Republicans and the Democrats are in cahoots -- to further control the population in any and every way possible, to further redistribute wealth to the upper 1%, to conduct a belligerant and illegal foreign policy, to ignore international treaties that have been approved by the Senate (and are, therefore, US law), etc. . . .

the solution? . . . I have no idea . . .

[Telly Savalas]

18. Feingold voted against the war, against the bankruptcy act,

against the first Patriot Act. If you'd like to back up your claims that the Senator supports policies that would redistribute wealth to the upper 1% and encourage a belligerant foreign policy, I'm all ears. He's actually read the Senate version of the revised Patriot Act. I'm guessing you haven't. Given his track record of being on the right side of key issues, I'm not going to be infuriated by this unless I know of specific provisions of the Senate bill which are unacceptable. Would you care to name a few?

[Hippo_Tron]

7. Alright I'm highly suspicious, I know that Russ is a good guy

And he's unquestionably my first choice for 2008. But he, if anybody, should know that making yourself "electable" a few years before a presidential run is not a quality of leadership.

I admit, that if he is telling the truth and the bill does make important changes to the Patriot Act (I will have to read it to determine this), then I support what he is doing.

Another test is, will he live up to his statement about opposing the act if it is not the one that came out of the Senate committee.

Also, I do note that in his statements he is addressing "Mr. Chairman" and referencing that it is the Chairman's bill. The Chairman he is referring to is Arlen Specter, who is one of the more level headed Republicans. At first glance, I'll take into account that this proposal could make some real changes, considering who it was written by.

I'm going to keep my eye on Russ during this one and hopefully I won't end up writing him a letter about how I am disappointed in him.

[AntiCoup2K4]

8. Feingold is listed as a DLC member

Eventually, he had to start acting like one, right?

[Hippo_Tron]

9. Umm, I call bullshit when I see it...

There's a list of DLC Senators on this website

http://www.ndol.org/

Feingold's name is absent

[ulysses]

10. Feingold is not DLC. n/t

[Mass]

12. He is not a DLC member.

Not that they are all bad, but he is definitively not.

[Telly Savalas]

15. What's your agenda in posting false information about Senator Feingold?

[blondeatlast]

20. Where's the proof? I see some in the post below yours... nt

[Totally Committed]

11. Wow... am I disappointed!

This is how you can tell he's running for President.

TC

[Telly Savalas]

16. What specific provisions of the Senate version of the bill disappoint you?

I haven't read it, so I can't say one way or the other. Senator Feingold, the only Senator who voted against the first patriot act, has a pretty good track record of standing up for the rights of Americans. Hence I'm inclined not to cast judgement unless there's a concrete criticism. Please share your concerns.

[Hippo_Tron]

22. Yea, I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt for now...

I am going to read over the bill and see what it actually does. He does have a legitimate point, that if he was involved in hammering out the compromise and if the compromise actually does make the Patriot Act better, then he has to support it. But if it doesn't really change anything and this is a political stunt, then I am going to be very disappointed in Russ.

[Mass]

13. Let see - Cant you even consider they are honest and changed enough

that it was acceptable.

I trust Kennedy and Feingold a lot, and the fact that they voted for this legislation is enough for me to consider it is acceptable, though not perfect.

Of course, we can also think we know better (whether we have read the Senate version of the bill or not). So just to see, who here is a Senate staffer with access to the bill. :sarcasm:

[Hippo_Tron]

23. Well Feingold even admitted that this won't make the Patriot Act perfect

He did say that it improves the Patriot Act, however, and frankly any progress is good progress considering who controls Congress and the White House.

[Mass]

24. We are in total agreement,

They have been looking for these modifications for a long time now.

The sad thing is that they will probably disappear in conference and everything will be back to 0.

[Hippo_Tron]

26. And that is where I hope Russ will take a stand

You're right, chances are that all of this will be wiped in conference, especially considering the fact that DeLay doesn't let any Democrats sit on conference committees. When that happens (I predict it will), I hope that Russ will take a stand and not vote to re-authorize the Patriot Act. If he does, I will continue to respect him and hopefully support his presidential bid.

[shance]

25. What our Congressional leaders are not giving us: SPECIFICS

There is simply no reason to be voting on a piece of legislation that overrides the Constitution and the provisions that protect all American citizens from precisely this type of legislation.

This response by Russ Feingold unfortunately sounds eerily familiar with many Democratic responses in the past when voting for controversial legislation: ie The Iraq War Resolution. The overall pattern being: Well, Im not fully comfortable with this bill (no specifics), but it's an "improvement" (whatever that means) and so I will now go ahead and vote for it, because there has been a little improvement made?

The Patriot Act overall is a power grab that leaves essentially all Americans vulnerable to being violated and harmed without ever having any recourse or tangible evidence by which to hold those potentially abusing their power, accountable. Especially those that oppose the Administrations policies.

This is something all Americans should be concerned about.

This has nothing to do with being Democrat or Republican, and the evidence of that is Dianne Feinstein is now planning to co-sponsor the reauthorization of the Patriot Act.

This is about a potential bipartisan abuse of power and privilege under the guise of "War on Terrorism".

Most importantly to reiterate again, The Patriot Act violates the provisions of our Constitution which are there PRECISELY TO PROTECT us from legislation like the Patriot Act.

[Hippo_Tron]

27. Alright, I read the Specter bill, everybody should do the same

It will take you all of five minutes

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:S.1389
(you need to insert a colon ":" at the end of the link to get it to work)

Here's my summary. This version of the act does do a good job limiting and placing more oversight on some of the more ridiculous and clearly unconstitutional searches that the government could do. The language is changed, so that search warrants with delayed notice have to actually fall under a specific category, the AG can't just say "uh we have a good reason for this". It also places stricter rules on the use of FISA which the original Patriot Act gave the Justice Department almost un-restricted usage of, with the only oversight being a secret court.

My overall thoughts... these are good changes that are being made, but I am very concerned about the fact that there is nothing in there regarding the rights of those that we have detained as suspected terrorists.

[shance]

28. Patriot Act renewal: here are the specifics. The same violations occur.

I'm not sure how or if the Specter bill is any way different, or if it is indeed the same bill. However, this is what Congress is voting on.

As I said before, the same violations of the Constitution and citizens rights are greatly affected in this legislation, and some provisions seek to increase the governments ability to invade practically every aspect of Americans' lives.

Please read below.


Patriot Act renewal: why you should care and act now

by ThomH
Thu Jul 21st, 2005 at 07:40:36 PDT

The Patriot Act is set for renewal and expansion. The vote in Congress might take place today, tomorrow or early next week. It's only a matter of hours now. Here's why you should care. And why you should take action.

Of the provisions that were supposed to sunset, the most dangerous is Section 215, which was due to sunset (expire) on 31 December 2005 but now seems will be renewed and perhaps even expanded.

Although Section 215 by itself vastly expands "the FBI's power to spy on ordinary people living in the United States, including United States citizens and permanent residents," other sections of Patriot Act also engander our civil liberties. Courtesy of the good people from Red White & Blue Alliance, let me present the following breakdown:

* Health
* Finance
* Guns
* Religion
* Libraries and Bookstores

I realise that some Americans might not care if their reading habits are known to the government; likewise, others might favor strong gun control and believe this act supports their political preferences. In fact, however, the Patriot Act endangers the rights of all American citizens–politically left, right and center. Let's take each of those topics–Health, Finance, Guns, Religion, Libraries and Bookstores–in turn.

Health
Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows government agents to get orders allowing them to collect personal data on ordinary Americans, including medical records, without any specific facts connecting those records to a foreign terrorist.

In fact, the Patriot Act allows the federal government to compel your doctor to secretly release your records and bar your doctor or insurance company from ever telling you.

These powers of the Patriot Act needs to be reformed to focus on records that have facts connecting them to foreign terrorists versus fishing expeditions into our private lives. Americans have a right to expect that their government is not going to invade the privacy of their medical records without probable cause of a crime.
Finance

Section 505 of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to demand financial records about ordinary Americans without any specific facts connecting their financial records to a foreign agent and without a court order.

Under the Patriot Act, any company considered to be handling financial documents-your bank, your travel agency, a hotel casino, a pawn broker, or even the U.S. Post Office-can be sewed with a secret letter demanding information about your financial transactions, without court approval. And the company is barred forever from telling you that your financial records have been secretly obtained by the FBI.

Section 213 of the Patriot Act allows federal agents to get a court order to secretly search people's homes and businesses and seize their personal property without notice for weeks, months or indefinitely, without any evidence at all connecting them to foreign terrorism.
These provisions of the Patriot Act violate your reasonable expectations of privacy under the Constitution.
Guns
Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows government agents to collect personal data on ordinary Americans, including gun purchases, without any specific facts connecting the records sought to a foreign terrorist.

Section 213 of the Patriot Act allows federal agents to get a court order to secretly search people's homes and businesses and seize their personal property without notice for weeks, months or indefinitely, without any evidence at all connecting them to foreign terrorism.

These provisions of the Patriot Act violate your fundamental expectations of privacy.
Religion
Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows government agents to get orders allowing them to obtain records about the activities of ordinary Americans, without any specific facts connecting those records to a foreign terrorist. The law currently prevents searches of records based "solely" on protected First Amendment activity, but the proceedings allowing searches of records are secret and non-adversarial. And, under the Patriot Act, the court is required to issue the search order if the government certifies that it wants the records as part of intelligence gathering.

New Patriot Act provisions being supported by the administration would delete even this meager protection for records searches and delete even the requirement of getting a court rubber-stamp of the request for records. This could allow the government to request membership lists from churches, temples, mosques, and other religious organizations without any facts connecting these records to a foreign terrorist, as long as the investigation as a whole was not based "solely" on someone exercising their freedom of conscience under the First Amendment.

These provisions of the Patriot Act violate your constitutional rights to privacy, and jeopardize your freedom of speech, worship, and association.
Libraries and Bookstores

Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows law enforcement authorities to get a secret order demanding access to library records, including lists of books checked out, without any specific facts connecting the records sought to a foreign agent or foreign terrorist. It would also allow the government to obtain records of the books or magazines you buy, even if there is no probable cause you have committed any crime. And the library or bookstore is barred forever from telling you your records have been obtained by the federal government.

These provisions of the Patriot Act violate your 4th Amendment rights including your reasonable expectation of exclusion from government surveillance.

To read more:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/21/104036/731

[Hippo_Tron]

29. Thanks, but I'm well aware of all of this already

I did a term paper on the Patriot Act, I've got a pretty good idea of all of the stuff that is in it. My point was, that the ammendments to the act that Specter proposed (the Specter bill being a renewal of the Patriot Act with those amendments), do place more restrictions on the searches that the justice department can do. However, as Feingold stated, the amendments don't even come close to completely stopping the Patriot Act from infringing on civil liberties and it also it doesn't even address several important parts of the act.

I was just suggesting that everybody read the "Specter bill" because it was the bill that Feingold was talking about, and decide for themselves if the reforms in the Specter bill were actually significant enough to merit voting for it.

[shance]

31. I'm confused as to what the house confirmed and what is being enacted

specifically.

My main concern is what SPECIFICALLY is being voted on and confirmed by both the House and the Senate. Are there two separate bills and if so how do two conflicting bills become law if addressing the same Act?

It is confusing and seems rather difficult to know exactly what proposals and bills specifically are being voted into legislation and how it will affect Americans.

That is what we all need to know, especially if all of our rights as Americans (in violation of the Constitution) are directly affected.

[Idioteque]

32. The House passed it's own version...

...that god rid of the sunset clauses and made the patriot act much worse.

The Senate bill, on the other hand, seems to make it a bit better. Eventually, the House and Senate will have to resolve their differences in conference. Then the conference report will be voted on in each house.

[shance]

34. "Better"? Making the Patriot Act permanent is "better"?

How so?

It allows government authorities and those in power total immunity from legal recourse while leaving any American citizen vulnerable to potential abuse, and certainly any and all citizens who oppose the policies of this Administration. All in all, the Patriot Act was an overreaching power grab by those in the Bush Administration, and to be frank, there is essentially no other purpose of the Patriot Act but to invalidate the power of the Constitution in order to have free access and power to violate and invade American citizens' lives at free will without any political or legal accountability.

To date, five states, and 372 counties, cities, villages and towns have passed resolutions, ordinances or ballot initiatives condemning the law created by Attorney General John Ashcroft and expressing their commitment to the values expressed in the Bill of Rights. (http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion//index.php?ntid=35197&ntpid=0)

I'm concerned as others that the War on Terrorism is being used to diminish our Constitutional rights as American citizens. Why is it that whenever there is an terrorist attack, that the attack then becomes an assault on everyone's lives? No greater example to defend this assault is the now attempt to permanently enact the Patriot Act.

[Hippo_Tron]

35. The Senate version doesn't make it permanent

Or at least the one that is coming out of the Senate Judiciary Committee (the Specter bill), the one that Feingold is talking about supporting. He mentioned that there is another one coming out of the House, that somebody metnioned below, makes the act permanent.

Here's basically what Feingold is saying... the version coming out of the Senate Judiciary Committee fixes SOME things in the Patriot Act. The one in the House does not. If the version that comes out of the conference committee is more like the Senate version than the House version, he will vote for it because it will make improvements. If it is more like the House version, he will not vote for it, because it will stay the same or even make matters worse.

To be quite honest, chances are that the bill that comes out of conference will look more like the House version. Under DeLay's rules, no Democrats sit on conference committees, meaning that there will be a heavy GOP majority on the committee.

The hard truth is that REAL reform of the Patriot Act is going to happen until we get a new congress and a new President. But if we can keep it from becoming permanent, that will greatly help us defeat it the next time it sunsets because we will only need to control one branch of government to defeat it. Since it will be sunsetting, the congress will have to re-approve it and the President will have to sign it. If one of those bodies is unwilling, then it sunsets. However, if it is made permanent, then congress will have to pass reform and the President will have to sign it.

[sandnsea]

33. They're working on that

I was just getting ready to post..

Leading Democrats called for an Independent Commission to investigate US policies and practices towards detainees along with alleged abuse. The Levin Amendment will create the Commission and will be introduced as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. Sens. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., John Rockefeller, D-W.V., and Jack Reed, D-R.I., joined Senator Levin who stated, “We are calling for an Independent Commission on the Treatment of Detainees because the Defense Department has shown that it is not capable of investigating itself,” said Levin. “The most serious scandal in recent military history needs an objective investigation.”

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=1281

[autorank]

30. blablabla, They're all full of shit. And I'm a lifetime Yellow Dog DEM

I am so sick of these clowns. What is Feingold's major malfunction? He's supposed to be one of the good guys. I'll get the final vote count on this one.

Here are the litmus tests on crucial Yeas and Nays in the Senate:

1) Bush Tax Cut - Yea, you're an idiot -- why do you hate the American people?
2) Iraq War - Yea, you're an idiot -- why do you hate the American people?
3) Patriot Act Extension - Yea, you're an idiot -- why do you hate the American people?
4) Confirm Judge Roberts - Yea, you're an idiot -- why do you hate the American people?

NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY. GET RID OF THE LOSERS


A comprehensive explanation of election fraud--text and key links