Dems Jab at Republicans for voting down Patriot Act

Dems are the biggest bunch of hypocrites ever! They whine and complain about the Patriot act for a decade. Then when the first group of politicians in Washington with the guts to vote it down turns out to be Republicans, they point fingers at the Republican Party and claim it is a failure of leadership.  That if the Republicans didn't have the votes to pass it that it should never have been brought up for a vote.  Extending 3 portions of the Patriot Act failed to pass by 2/3rd on Tuesday by 13 votes.

Some of the commenters at Politico had a more balanced approach:

Kinnison said:
When you write "the Republicans" what you really mean is the Republican leadership, which consists of old-line professional politicians and party elites. The people who caused the failure to renew of the Patriot Act provisions are the "Young Turks", the new guys elected primarily by the Tea Party, who know who sent them and what they expect from their Representatives: constitutional adherence, smaller government, reduced spending and protection of our liberties. They voted against renewing the Patriot Act, as they should have.

Michael Maloney said:
This is going to be a very interesting session of congress vis a vis watching the infighting between the Tea Party (libertarian) wing of the party and the establishment (authoritarian) wing.

Good for the new kids for remembering their pledge to keep Government out of our hair.

mtrillium said:
Republican embarassment? Not really. Sounds like a lively caucus of independent thinkers -- and I like them even more!

As far as merits: all in all, Patriot Act should probably be renewed, but I get a chill giving it to the Libs to use. Don't know if I trust with powerful tools Democrat operatives staffing some key positions in FBI. For some lefties, their politics is like Islam: any abuse is justified in order to "right" a "wrong".

Patriot Act is a controversial expansion of power, there's a good reason why it has a sunset provision, you better trust who you give it to. When the Press is in opposition, you can be sure they'll hunt down any appearance of abuse, which makes it safer with Repubs at the helm. With Press and Dems at power, there's less of a balance.

Portions of Patriot Act set to expire Feb 28th

Will congress renew the Patriot Act without debate? That seems to be what the Wall Street Journal expects will happen.

Three sections of the USA Patriot Act are up for a vote on Feb. 28:

1. Roving surveillance of suspects who try to evade court-authorized wiretaps under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
2. Access to business records related to intelligence and terrorism investigations.
3. Surveillance of a "lone wolf" or suspect who isn't affiliated with a known group or foreign power.

All three of these activities now occur without a warrant, without oversight by a judge. This is not constitutional, in that under the fourth amendment we are entitled to protection from warrantless searches of our persons, papers and effects.

If we will not adhere to the constitution now, then WHEN! When the islamists give up and quit? That is not going to happen any time soon. We must keep our country safe and FREE for our citizens NOW. And stop letting foreigners determine our domestic policy. We must not let them take away our freedom or they WIN!

One commenter gave a form letter to send to congresspeople:

re: Repeal the Patriot Act. It is not lawfully possible to extend its provisions.
Congressman:

You honor your oath to support and defend our Constitution and hold it dear.
Yet, error may still occur unknowingly.
For that reason I write to remind you that “Any scheme or artifice to defraud” the citizens of the United States of America of the full immunities and benefits of our
Fourth Amendment to the Constitution,
. . "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."
By enacting a vote to continue the Patriot Act even for one day is a felony 18USC1341->1346 “Frauds & Swindles” (NOT subject of the Art.I Sect.6 immunity) given the inevitable communication of that vote’s effect.

I trust that you will take care to do your duty.

Yet I am concerned that other less knowledgeable members of Congress might bring you into danger by their vote to extend the Patriot Act.
Your witness of their enacting a vote to extend will establish a 18USC4 “Misprision of Felony” burden upon you.
Please advise your fellow Congressmen of the burden that our penal code places upon them.
The expiration of the unconstitutional Patriot Act needs to occur by either default or unanimous rejection of extension – Our country does not need the burden of broad criminal indictment on Congressmen at this time.

There is evidence that prior votes for the Patriot Act were made in ignorance and so were without criminal intent. This vote is different.

The nature of the Patriot Act’s scheme to defraud us of our Constitution’s Fourth Amendment is now evidenced as being known by all Congressmen so criminal intent will be conclusively established and the criminal act would be a matter established by public record.

When delivering that warning to Congress I ask that you call for a record of each Congressman's vote so you clear yourself of any taint of criminal culpability in this mater.

Thanks again for becoming my Congressional Representative. I know that takes courage even if your love of freedom makes the courage seem small to you.

Sincerely,

Obama Is A Worse Snoop Than Bush

Obama wants the CIA to team up with Google to track all of our internet surfing. The Patriot Act, removing the constitutional requirement for "probable cause" was bad enough under Bush. Obama promised to get rid of the Patriot Act. But once in office, he not only kept the Patriot Act in place, he now seeks to invade our privacy even further. Both the Patriot Act and this new spying plan ignore our constitutionally protected rights to privacy of our "papers and effects". 200 years ago, there were no emails, but I bet if you asked our founding fathers, they would agree that emails are the modern equivalent of "papers" which shall not be searched without a warrant.

Why is the American left not screaming daily about the Patriot Act. It was BAD when George W. Bush did it, but it is OK now that Obama does it? And now Obama wants more power? Come on, lefties. Show some character. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional no matter which president is in office.

H/T Gateway Pundit.

Will We Have The Discipline To Reverse Unconstitutional Legislation After November?

We have a lot of work ahead of us getting this country back to its Constitutional roots.   After we elect Conservative representatives in upcoming elections, many pieces of Obama legislation, such as Obamacare, must be repealed. Obama's unlawful seizure of private property, as with the automobile companies, must be set right. But we must discipline ourselves to look at ALL unconstitutional legislation, not just that put forward by Democrats. I'm thinking of the Patriot Act. Any portions of that act that permit search and seizure without warrant are unconstitutional and should be abolished. Including electronic searches. The founding fathers wrote about papers and effects. They corresponded using paper and nowadays we correspond electronically. That does not mean we give up our rights to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure.

Power, once gained, is seldom voluntarily relinquished. Liberal voters expected Obama to overturn the Patriot Act. They are surprised and disappointed that he has not. Historians are not surprised at all. And as the Obama administration seeks to label Tea Party patriots domestic terrorists as Janet Napolitano did last year in her outrageous DHS memo, we feel the dirt of Obama's boot on our necks.

If we are able to gain a vast electoral victory in November and in 2012, should we then sit on our laurels? Should we breathe easy and go back to watching reality TV? Should we feel OK because it is "our guy" in the White House and he is targeting those "other guys" over there, not us?

I say NO. "The only way to promote the good of the community is to unerringly protect the rights of the individual." M. Badnarik. Ayn Rand also touted the rights of the individual. Seizure of private property, I hope everyone will agree, is unconstitutional. But anti-terrorist legislation, particularly in a post-9/11 world, is a topic that we are not all in agreement on. But to me it is like protecting the right of free speech for communists, or anybody else you don't agree with. I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it. I want an easy way to find/investigate/lock up terrorists, but I want to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America. We must protect ourselves while protecting our laws. Without our laws, we are naked against tyranny. Be it tyranny of the majority (democracy) or tyranny of a president, we either defend our law or stand defenseless.
Pic via Baizaphotography.

Obamacare is Unconstitutional

Is Obamacare Constitutional? Is the Patriot Act Constitutional? Is it up to our generation to stand for freedom?

Obama Will Continue Sweeping Patriot Act Powers

No Sunset for Sweeping Patriot Act Powers?
By William Fisher, IPS News

NEW YORK, Nov 4 (IPS) - The USA Patriot Act, rushed into law by a panicky U.S. Congress in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sep. 11, 2001, gave the government broad surveillance powers to spy on innocent citizens. But it also stipulated that three of its more controversial provisions should expire next month unless reapproved by lawmakers.

And it appears that reapproval may be about to happen – evidently with a green light from the Barack Obama administration and over strong objections from human rights and civil liberties groups.

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the USA Patriot Act Extension Act of 2009. The bill makes only minor changes to the original Patriot Act and was further watered down by amendments adopted during the committee's deliberations.

"The Senate Judiciary Committee had the opportunity to pass legislation to rein in a bill that has become a symbol of out-of-control government invasions of your privacy. They failed - approving a bill that does little to curtail the sweeping powers embedded in the Patriot Act," said the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

The committee's actions were driven by "short-term and political considerations", Chip Pitts, president of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, told IPS.

The Judiciary Committee ignored "the need for a more sensible long-term, reasoned, rule-of-law approach", he said.

Now, civil libertarians are looking to the House of Representatives, where that body's Judiciary Committee has already begun to consider the measure. Both chambers must produce versions of the legislation, after which differences will be reconciled by a bicameral conference committee.

There are three sections of the law due to expire next month.

The "National Security Letter (NSL)" provision

The FBI uses NSLs to compel Internet service providers, libraries, banks, and credit reporting companies to turn over sensitive information about their customers and patrons. Using this data, the government can compile vast dossiers about innocent people.

Government reports confirm that upwards of 50,000 of these secret record demands go out each year. In response to an ACLU lawsuit known as Doe v. Holder, the Second Circuit Court of Appeal struck down as unconstitutional the part of the NSL law that gives the FBI the power to prohibit NSL recipients from telling anyone that the government has secretly requested customer Internet records.

The "Material Support" Statute

This provision criminalises providing "material support" to terrorists, defined as providing any tangible or intangible good, service or advice to a terrorist or designated group.

As amended by the Patriot Act and other laws since September 11, this section criminalises a wide array of activities, regardless of whether they actually or intentionally further terrorist goals or organisations. Federal courts have struck portions of the statute as unconstitutional and a number of cases have been dismissed or ended in mistrial.

The FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Amendments Act of 2008

Last summer, Congress amended the law to permit the government to conduct warrantless and suspicion-less dragnet collection of U.S. residents' international telephone calls and e-mails.

Now the civil liberties community is stepping up lobbying efforts to ensure that the legislation that emerges from the House Judiciary Committee contains more protections for privacy and other civil liberties. Such legislation has been introduced in the House by three powerful Congressmen: John Conyers of Michigan, Jerrold Nadler of New York, and Robert Scott of Virginia.

Their proposed amendments Act would create more civil liberties protections for many of the Patriot Act powers, including restricting the gag order attached to receiving a subpoena known as a national security letter (NSL), terminating the never-used "lone wolf" surveillance power, and limiting the use of NSLs to collect information on suspected terrorists or spies instead of innocent Americans.

However, the proposed new legislation leaves intact the Patriot Act's so-called "material support" provision, permitting prosecution of those who work with or for charities that give humanitarian aid in good faith to war-torn countries.

The actions of the Senate committee have left human rights advocates and many legal scholars perplexed because the committee chair, Senator Patrick Leahy, Democratic of Vermont, is considered one of the most liberal members of the Senate, and its members include such other high-profile progressives as Al Franken of Minnesota, Russ D. Feingold of Wisconsin, Chuck Schumer of New York, Dick J. Durbin of Illinois, and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

Asked by IPS to explain their votes, Chip Pitts of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee said "the secret and hypocritical lobbying by the Obama administration against reforms - while publicly stating receptiveness to them - was undoubtedly a huge if lamentable factor." (emphasis added)

He also cited the recent arrests of Najibullah Zazi and others, noting that Leahy said that in light of these incidents, "this is no time to weaken or undermine the tools that law enforcement relies on to protect America."

Zazi has been charged with conspiring to bomb targets in the U.S. He allegedly traveled last year to Pakistan, where the FBI charges that he attended terrorist training camps.

"In sum, short-term and political considerations driven by dramatic events once again dramatically affected the need for a more sensible long-term, reasoned, rule-of-law approach," Pitts told IPS.

"In the eight years since passage of the original Patriot Act, it's become clear that the escalating political competition to appear tough on terror - and avoid being accused of being 'soft on terror' - brings perceived electoral benefits with few costs, with vital but fragile civil liberties being easily sacrificed," he added.

"The persistent myths and claims that the Patriot Act hasn't been abused are simply ludicrous after the documentation by (civil liberties groups), regarding the torrent of abuse that has happened since 9/11," Pitts told IPS.

Prior to the Judiciary Committee markups, the ACLU and other civil liberties groups had endorsed the JUSTICE Act, an alternative bill that would heavily reform not only the Patriot Act but other overly broad surveillance laws.

Amendments that were offered but failed by voice vote included an amendment by Senator Durbin to curb the abuse of the National Security Letter (NSL) statute and another offered by Senator Feingold to allow the "lone wolf" provision to expire (this never-used provision targets individuals who are not connected to terrorist groups). An amendment also failed that would make it more difficult for recipients to challenge the gag order that comes with receiving an NSL.

However, two amendments offered Senator Feingold were included in the final bill. In one, the Department of Justice would be ordered to discard any illegally obtained information received in response to an NSL.

In the second, the government would have to notify suspects of "sneak and peek" searches within seven days instead of the 30 days currently required by the statute.

"Sneak and peek" searches allow the government to search a home without notifying the resident immediately.
Hat tip Common Dreams.