Barack Obama: FactCheck: Promised to repeal Patriot Act, then voted for it
Clinton took direct aim at Obama and connects fairly solidly: "You said you would vote against the Patriot Act; you came to the Senate, you voted for it." Clinton is correct to say that Obama opposed the Patriot Act during his run for the Senate. She's relying on a 2003 Illinois National Organization for Women questionnaire in which Obama wrote that he would vote to "repeal the Patriot Act" or replace it with a "new, carefully crafted proposal." When it came time to reauthorize the law in 2005, though, Obama voted in favor of it. He started out opposing it: In Dec. 2005, Obama voted against ending debate--a position equivalent to declaring a lack of support for the measure. Then in February of that year, Obama said on the floor that he would support th Patriot Act's reauthorization. In March 2006, Obama both voted for cloture and for the Patriot Act reauthorization conference report.
Clinton, by the way, followed exactly the same path on the 2005 bill, from speaking in opposition to voting for it.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic debate Jan 5, 2008
Podcast Transcript:
Hello, this is Senator Barack Obama and today is Friday, December 16th, 2005.
You know four years ago, following 9/11, this body that I serve in, the United States Senate, passed the USA PATRIOT Act in order to give our nation's law enforcement the tools they needed to track down terrorists - terrorists who possibly right now are looking to exploit weaknesses in our laws and our security and carry out even deadlier attacks than we saw back then.
All of us agree that we need legislation to make it harder for suspected terrorists to go undetected in this country. All of us agree that we need to make it harder for them to organize and strategize and get flight licenses and sneak across our borders - every single America wants that to happen.
But soon after the PATRIOT Act passed, I began hearing concerns from people of every background, every political leaning that this law - the very purpose of which was to protect us - was also threatening to violate our rights and our freedoms as Americans. That it didn't just provide law enforcement the powers it needed to keep us safe, but powers that it didn't need to invade our privacy without cause or suspicion.
Now, what's happened in Washington, of course, is that the debate as usual has degenerated into this "either-or" type debate. So, either we're in favor of protecting our people from terror or we will protect our most cherished civil liberties. That's a false choice. It asks too little of us, assumes too little about America.
That's why as it's come time to reauthorize this law, there have been a group of senators, including myself, working in a bi-partisan way to show the American people that we can track down terrorists without trampling on our civil rights. We want to show the American people that the federal government will only issue warrants and execute searches because it needs to, not because it wants to. In other words, what we've been trying to do is to inject some accountability in this process - to get answers and to see evidence where there is suspicion.
So, a bi-partisan group of Senators several weeks ago actually came up with a compromise piece of legislation - you had people like Russ Feingold on the left and Larry Craig on the right agree to this bill. We passed it out of the Senate unanimously. It wasn't perfect but at least it addressed some of the most serious provisions, like the so-called "sneak-and-peek" provisions, that existed in current law.
Unfortunately, the house members decided they didn't like this bill. They put some rushed legislation together that fails to address the concerns that people had about the previous PATRIOT ACT. So, just to give you a couple of examples: this legislation puts our own Justice Department above the law. When National Security Letters are issued this legislation that's been proposed allowed federal agents to conduct any search on any American, no matter how extensive or wide-ranging, without ever going before a judge to prove that the search is necessary. All they needed was sign-off from a local FBI official. That's it.
Once a business or a person received notification that they will be searched, they are prohibited from telling anybody about it; they can't challenge this automatic gag order in court. Despite the fact that judges have already found similar restrictions violate the First Amendment - the bill that is before the Senate disregards this case law and the right to challenge the gag orders.
If you do decide to consult an attorney for legal advice - you have to tell the FBI that you've done so already. This is unheard of - there is no such requirement in any other area of the law, and I don't see why it's justified here.
If somebody wants to know why their own government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private document, through library books they've read , phone calls they've made, e-mails that they've sent - this legislation gives people no rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law. No judge will hear their plea, no jury will hear their case.
And that's - that's just plain wrong.
Now, I'm happy to say that we had our first vote on this issue on the floor of the Senate today. There was a procedure that is called a "cloture vote." Cloture means that it ends debate, it eliminates the possibility of the filibuster. Those of us who thought this was a bad compromise voted against cloture, and a number of Republicans joined us and in fact cloture, which required 60 votes, did not succeed.
And so the Republican leadership is scrambling right now to figure out what they're going to do, and the White House has threatened that they are just going to let the Patriot Act lapse all together and will then blame Democrats if there is a terrorist attack prior to reauthorization of a new Patriot Act. Now that kind of rhetoric makes absolutely no sense, as you might imagine. If in fact the White House and the Republican leadership think that these provisions are absolutely vital, then you'd think that they would accept Democrats' offer to extend it for three months as we continue to work on this compromise. There's a lot of political posturing going on around this and I think that needs to end because the issues that we're dealing with here are too important to play politics with.
So, I am hopeful that we get an extension on the existing Patriot Act for three months; we can work out a compromise that ensures our civil liberties are protected; that provides for the critical judicial oversight that's at the core of most of our law enforcement processes; that still gives law enforcement the tools that they need in order to protect our homeland.
http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/051216-the_patriot_act/index.php From Obama's speech in the Senate:
But soon after the PATRIOT Act passed, a few years before I ever arrived in the Senate, I began hearing concerns from people of every background and political leaning that this law - the very purpose of which was to protect us - was also threatening to violate our rights and freedoms as Americans. That it didn't just provide law enforcement the powers it needed to keep us safe, but powers it didn't need to invade our privacy without cause or suspicion.
. . .
Unfortunately, that strong bi-partisan legislation has been tossed aside in Conference. Instead, we have been forced to consider a piece of rushed legislation that fails to address the concerns of members of both parties as well as the American people.
This is legislation that puts our own Justice Department above the law. When National Security Letters are issued, they allow federal agents to conduct any search on any American, no matter how extensive or wide-ranging, without ever going before a judge to prove that the search is necessary. They simply need sign-off from a local FBI official. That's all.
. . .
Even though judges have already found that similar restrictions violate the First Amendment - this Conference Report disregards the case law and the right to challenge the gag order.
If you do decide to consult an attorney for legal advice - you have to tell the FBI that you have done so. This is unheard of - there is no such requirement in any other area of law, and I don't see why it is justified here.
And if someone wants to know why their own government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private document - through library books they've read and phone calls they've made - this legislation gives people no rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law. No judge will hear their plea, no jury will hear their case.
This is just plain wrong.
. . .
We don't have to settle for a PATRIOT Act that sacrifices our liberties or our safety - we can have one that secures both.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
