The Patriot Act was a rush job that abused the legislative process

by Rick Boucher for the Roanoke Times editorial page

Boucher, a Democrat from Abingdon, represents the 9th Congressional District of Virginia in the U.S. House of Representatives,

On Sept. 11, 2001, our nation suffered' terrorist attacks on American soil of unprecedented magnitude. Within days, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that the U.S. Justice Department would bring to Congress a legislative measure to provide the government with new powers needed to fight terrorism. The goal was commendable, but the result was not.

The law that passed under the Patriot Act label was largely an assemblage of previously rejected proposals that trample on the basic rights of Americans. Congress should allow its most troublesome provisions to expire at the end of this year.

The enactment of the Patriot Act grossly abused the legislative process. The House Judiciary Committee, on which I sit, conducted hearings and engaged in member-to-member discussions on the Ashcroft legislation in the weeks following Sept. 11.

Under the thoughtful leadership of the committee's chairman, Republican James Sensenbrenner, the committee concluded that the Ashcroft bill was too extreme, that many of its provisions were unnecessary and that its sweeping invasions of civil liberties should be rejected.

The House Judiciary Committee set the Ashcroft bill aside and wrote its own legislation, which modestly expanded law enforcement powers without features that undermined civil liberties. In a rare demonstration of bipartisan harmony in a committee usually, divided along partisan lines, every member of the committee voted for the bill that Chairman Sensenbrenner put forward after the committee decided to reject the Ashcroft measure.

Then a truly extraordinary thing happened. Normal legislative procedure was tossed aside. The broadly supported legislation written by the Judiciary Committee was completely ignored by the speaker of the House.

At the urging of Ashcroft, the speaker refused even to allow the Judiciary Committee bill to be considered on the House floor. Instead, he placed before the House the Ashcroft bill the committee had rejected, and after minimal floor debate it passed on a divided vote. I voted no.

In my 23 years in Congress, I have never witnessed a greater abuse of the legislative process or a more careless act by the leadership of the House. A bill that the committee with law enforcement expertise had broadly rejected was passed over that committee's objections. And serious harm was done.

The law intrudes deeply into the civil liberties Americans have long enjoyed:

It authorizes the "sneak and peek" search war- rant, which allows law enforcement to conduct secret searches of homes with indefinitely delayed notifica- tion. Law enforcement may search your home, and you could never know about it.

It permits government agents to force libraries, bookstores, churches and other organizations to turn over personal records. of customers. Your financial records, medical history, Internet use patterns and library loan records are up for grabs by law enforcement with no requirement to show suspicion that you have been involved in a crime.

All law enforcement has to say is that the information is related to an investigation. It could be an investigation of someone you have never met and about whom you have no knowledge. Moreover, affected organizations may not tell you that they have turned over your private information.

The law broadly expands law enforcement's ability to seize information from businesses and others without any court review. It allows the FBI, without obtaining court approval and based only on its assertion that information is needed for an investigation, to demand that businesses turn over financial records, credit reports and telephone and Internet billing records, and it prohibits the businesses from asking a court to weigh in on the matter or from telling its customers of the FBI's
demand.

Last September, a federal district court struck down this provision as unconstitutional; however, the Justice Department has appealed the decision.

These are only a few of the many situations in which the government, under authority granted by the Patriot Act, can trample our constitutional rights. The law was passed at a time when the country was traumatized by the attacks of 9/11. Ashcroft and a compliant House leadership took advantage of the public's fear to circumvent long-honored legislative procedures and place an unworthy statute on the books.

Sixteen sections of the Patriot Act are scheduled to expire at the end of this year. I will be urging that the statute's most troubling provisions not be renewed.

That's a great article, Tom.

I agree, let it die already.

I was watching the news last night and it seems like it'll easily pass in the house. no one wants to face their voters and explain why they would limit law enforcement at a time like this.

At a time like what? Have you seen something that was different later on?

Why doesn't someone reintroduce the originally concieved bill?

To date none of this has caught a terrorist. Only thing it has done is to allow the government to watch its citizens and gather information without having to be bothered with the legalities of having to go through proper legal channels to do it. This is nothing short of a spy network on the citizens of this country and as such should be terminated as so far no results have shown that it is effective in anyway, other than to bypass constitutional guarrenties.

Such actions as are being taken with this sort of methods are what one would expect of a third world dictatorship where freedoms are an illusion at best. Prehaps we have now arrived at such a state. If not we can not be far from it. This isn't the America you or I grew up with. Nor is it the one I served in this countries military for. It is a sad state of affairs to see this and as an individual I can not agree with such actions on the part of a government that is supposed to represent its people.

For all intents and purposes the terrorists have won and have made inroads to closing down the liberties that were once what made this country what it stood for.

I find it interesting that people now use the term "the government" as opposed to "our government"

JC123 I was refering to what the government was saying. a time like this when the threat of terror is still strong. It's not my words

There are parts of the Patriot act that need to be reworked if they are to be renewed, however I don't think this article is either very informative or entirely accurate. While the Powers granted are broad, and perhaps overly so the article completely fails to mention the the FBI is not ONLY a law enforcement body, they are charged with being the lead organization on Counter-Intelligence investigations and operations. In fact information gathered in Counter-Intelligence operations is not to be passed to the Criminal Investigations division. The problem encountered is that Terrorist operations typically have a foot in both camps, terrorists are both criminals and frequently foreign special operatives, sometimes state sponsored sometimes not. There is a question as to if the act as it currently stands provides enough protections for US Citizens as far as unreasonable search and seizure, and these concerns should be addressed, but we should also not forget that foreign nationals who are not Citizens of the United States technically have no rights under the Constitution, they are extended statutorily under various laws and treaties. People who are in the country illegally technically are not even eligible for these rights. The patriot act is intended to allow greater freedom in dealing with individuals who have entered the country with the intent to do harm to the country, it has been worded too loosely in some places allowing sections to be used to allow for searches to be granted to easily and for crimes not relating to counterintelligence or counter terrorism operations. However any safeguards need to insure that the FBI, CIA, NSA etc. are not required to disclose capabilities in a way that may make us vulnerable or at least blind to certain attacks and Counterintelligence operations are frequently time sensitive and should not be hampered by excessive legal intervention. If the permissions granted in the PAtriot Act were to be limited only to Counter Terrorism operations and investigations on Sabbotage, Arson, Hijacking, Assination, Kidnapping or Hostage Taking, Trafficking in ABC Weapons or Components thereof, and conspiracies to cause mass casualty events (and what constiutes a mass casualty event would have to be clearly defined) the Patriot Act would be far less odius.

As a third party observer here, I have to point out.
His first term in office was done in a Dictorial fashion.
also I beleive that if you let the terrorests destrioy your freedoms. Lincon, Washington, Jefferson would be spinning in there holes.....
If even half of Ferenhight 9/11 can be beleived, I would say you already have a problem..... "Greed" being number one and "Sloth" being another......Oh did i mention "Pride"???
well you get the Idea...
Your founding fathers would be Highly Dissapointed in you all."WE THE PEOPLE"
dose that not mean enything? CNN and the spin doctors of the Media are responcable for making you mad..... your TV "reality" shows??? what is that.... If all you watch is Sex Murder and Tourture... it is no wonder you are in the shape you are "As a Canadian" we have a system where one person dose not have all the power. to get somthing into law you have to get a MAJORITY VOTE.. "WE THE PEOPLE" in Canada have our government by the throught ALL the time so they CANNOT do things like this... Remember.... Freetrade agreement.... Pro "The Government" US "industry" at the end of there term in the "HOUSE" the PC ended up with Two seats and it stayed that way for years.
there should be ONE SYSTEM OF VOTE in the US guys..... ELECTORAL REFORM is what you need.. Sad but true.........

It might help if the people who voted on this shit were required to read it first.

The government is now engaged in a petty battle of partisan back-biting. Any move to resolve issues on common ground are attacked. It has nothing to do with the people. It isn't our government any more.

It belongs to Hollywood and Karl Rove.

"It might help if the people who voted on this shit were required to read it first."

I back this completely, as an add on the bills should be in language that is easily readable and clear. Most bills reported in Congress are written by staffers with the help of lobbyists, slightly re-written in committee (again usually by staffers) then filled with unrealted provisions to either help the bill pass or try to kill it. By the time it gets to the floor for a vote usually only a few people have actually read it, the rules for debate have been set so that noone has enough time to read a bill and everyone looks to the sponsors or leadership for what to do. What happens once bills pass is even worse though. The Public Laws (what bills are called after they are passed) are interpreted and added to the United States Code and are then interpreted
by the various enforcing agencies of the executive branch and added to the Code of Federal Regulations (the CFR) which is what is actually enforced. Frequently the CFR looks nothing like the bill that was passed, usually because the bill as passed was difficult to interpret or worded in such a way that the language didn't match the intent.

Sensenbrenner wasn't so thoughtful this morning...

If you are talking about the abrupt end to the hearing blame C-Span. Ever since the Cameras went on in the Capitol Members of Congress (and I mean almost all of them not one party or the other) have been more worried about posturing for the camera than having a good debate. Thats what you saw this morning, posturing from both sides (Democrats in their witness selection Republicans in cutting it short).

I've said it several times, Television is one of the worst things that has happened to American Politics.

The Patriot Act is sickening. The last I heard, and it was awhile ago, was that Bush wanted to make the "temporary" sections permanent. I sure didn't see that coming! Who would have thought?

Steve, c-span is supposed to be the citizens' source for information, without the lies of fox or cnn. It's a shame.

You all sould have seen it comming given the Man's track record of Shafting people... this is what started the Last two wars.... why do you think the allies to the US only sent in a Token force? Iraqu and Iran where bolth supplyed with Hardware from Bush's Daddy.... Arms Dealers... I do agree with the Hollywood angle but.....
Karl Rove?
Who is Karl Rove?

Karl Rove aka Bush's Brain. Darth Maul. Satan.

The difference between C-Span and the news networks is that when they show Congress at work, they don't muddy it up with commentary. They just record what goes on. And, yes, the pols do ham it up. I find it hysterical when they stand on the floor and talk for 5 minutes in passionate tones, and then the camera pans around, and there's no one there. But the camera doesn't lie. If Conyers called a hearing (and I understand it was within his rights), the chairman should not have been so rude to the panelists who took their time to come there. Except he didn't like the way the hearing was going. His un-Patriot Act was under attack. So he took his gavel and went home.

Karl Rove is the brilliant strategist who will, I bet, someday, a la deep throat Mr. Felt, admit to setting up Dan Rather and Newsweek. He knew the facts were there, but leaked them with false sources, thereby nullifying the damage of a properly investigated story getting out and doing real damage. Kill the messenger and Georgie comes out smelling like roses. Meanwhile leak sludge to Drudge and smear the other guys using innuendo.

Oh, the conspiracy theorists are out in force today. (Cue up the X-files theme.)

You think Rove set up Rather. But Rather fell for an obvious fake! And you say Bush is dumb??? However dumb, he's smarter than the MSM.

Speaking of dumbth, they released Senator Kerry's college grades this week. Not exactly a scholar. So who is Kerry's brain? LOL. Because his brain did not "report for duty" when he was in school, apparently. And we narrowly escaped having that idiot for a president. Whew! (Since you folks are usually too lazy to look up the source, and act like I make things up, see "Yale Grades Portray Kerry As Lackluster Student" in the June 7 Boston Globe.)

I know most people will be too biased to read it, but the book Shadow War by Richard Miniter explains the success we've been having worldwide in the war against Al Qaeda. How much credit does the Patriot Act have to do with that success? Probably not a lot. But the leadership of Al Qaeda has been largely captured or killed. Uncounted cells and plots have been stopped cold, though the MSM refuses to report on it. Maybe the methods are questionable, but then so were Abe Lincoln's -- suspending habeas corpus is a pretty big deal. Yet he is revered as almost saintly in some circles.

I would like to reexamine and refine many points of the Patriot Act. Write your Congresscritters. But those guys are living in fear that if something happens, and it is perceived that the extreme measures of the Patriot Act might have prevented it, they will be tarred and feathered politically. Since becoming a Congressperson in the first place requires removal of the spine, it is very difficult to get them to stand on principle, without strong external support.

James Sensenbrenner got his old grandma panties in a bunch during the Patriot Act hearings and abrupt stopped them, gaveling them closed and cutting the microphone feeds because HE didn't like the way the hearings were going.

To catch you up to speed about old Sensenbrenner...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/07/17/congr essman_pocketed/
"Congressman pocketed $18,000 for RIAA ‘lobbying trip’
By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco
Published Thursday 17th July 2003 23:07 GMT
The powerful Congressman at the center of the controversy over royalty rates for small webcasters took $18,000 from the Recording Industry Association of America.

As chair of the House Judiciary Committee, James Sensenbrenner was instrumental in forcing the deal that could result in an antitrust suit against the RIAA being filed by small webcasters.

The trouble is, Congressmen are forbidden from taking private donations to lobby abroad. Sensennbrenner recorded the visit to Taiwan and Thailand back in January, as a "fact finding mission".

According to the House Ethics Committee's advisory booklet on Gifts and Travel, "Members and staff may not accept expenses from a private source for travel the primary purpose of which is to conduct official business."

"If he's dictating policy, he should be a representative of the United States, not the RIAA," Boycott-RIAA founder Bill Evans told us.

The RIAA has confirmed that the purpose of Sensenbrenner's paid-for jaunt was one of exposition: "so they understand that this is a unified message coming from all levels of the U.S. government," according to an RIAA spokesperson.

"His own description belies that it was a 'fact-finding' trip," says Gary Ruskin, of the Congressional Accountability Project watchdog.

$18,000 can go a long way in Thailand. Sensenbrenner's brief trip was for just five days.

Three months before his five-day RIAA-sponsored trip, Sensenbrenner surprised observers by taking a close interest in the Small Webcasters Settlement Act (HR.5469) which morphed from the anticipated six-month cooling off period into a bill specifying detailed rates and conditions, which many small webcasters found unpalatable. According to participants in the negotiations, Sensenbrenner forced the webcasters to come up with a royalty settlement with the RIAA, threatening to use his staff to write the terms instead. Contacted by The Register this week, Sensenbrenner's office referered us to the House Judiciary Committee.

"It's not for us to say the rule was violated, but the House Ethics Committee should investigate, Ruskin told The Register. However, the Committee can only investigate the representative if asked to so by a fellow Congressman."
-----SNIP=========
Now, his greasy head has popped up in the news in the last two days because of his bizarre behavior in the Patriot Act hearings.

Apparently, he got his grandma panties in a bunch and stormed out like a baby throwing a tantrum, taking his toys and going home.
The Net is full of this story today, and I have blogged it onsome of my sites.
http://www.thebakersfieldchannel.com/news/459 6739/detail.html
"Committee Chairman Walks Out, Ending Raucous Patriot Act Hearing

POSTED: 6:41 pm PDT June 10, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Flaring tempers ended a Capitol Hill hearing on the Patriot Act.

Democrats and Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee accused each other of being irresponsible and undemocratic.

Democrats requested the session to get more testimony on the act, which expanded police search-and-seizure powers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The panel chairman -- Wisconsin Republican James Sensenbrenner -- abruptly gaveled the meeting to an end, shut off the microphones and walked out, followed by other Republicans.

New York Democrat Jerrold Nadler accuses Sensenbrenner of being "rather rude, cutting everybody off in mid-sentence with an attitude of total hostility."

-and-
http://www.harktheherald.com/modules.php?op=m odload&name=News&file=article&sid=57113&mode= thread&order=0&thold=0
"GOP chairman walks off, ending Patriot hearing

WASHINGTON -- The Republican chairman walked off with the gavel, leaving Democrats shouting into turned-off microphones at a raucous hearing Friday on the Patriot Act.

The House Judiciary Committee hearing, with the two sides accusing each other of being irresponsible and undemocratic, came as President Bush was urging Congress to renew those sections of the post-Sept. 11 counterterrorism law set to expire in September.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the panel, abruptly gaveled the meeting to an end and walked out, followed by other Republicans. Sensenbrenner declared that much of the testimony, which veered into debate over the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, was irrelevant."
===============SNIP=================
Now, remember that Sensenbrenner is the laptdop of the RIAA.

~Code

just shut up, auto...and go back to your hole in the ground. I'm just kidding around. But it would be wild if 10 years from now, something like that came out?

TYPO ALERT...I meant to say earlier...
SENSENBRENNER IS THE LAPDOG OF THE RIAA.

Democrats the Republicans - American politics is so polarised! No politition has time to work in the interests of the country, they are all too busy backstabbing the other party.

There was a terrorist attack on 9/11. That was... I cant remember, a long time ago. Years. And since then there has not been a single terrorist attack in the US that I know of. The new HDS, of course, uses this to claim they have successfully defended the country. But all they really do is try to justify their budget.

Exactly, goldenpi.

"There was a terrorist attack on 9/11"

...it failed because the Democans and Republicrats still fling dung at each other.

Politics and business as usual.

"Rather fell for an obvious fake!"

Perhaps he was swayed by the coincidence that the facts in the document were correct, which the White House has never denied. Kill the messenger and the message doesn't matter.

"The Patriot Act is sickening. The last I heard, and it was awhile ago, was that Bush wanted to make the 'temporary' sections permanent. I sure didn't see that coming! Who would have thought?"

It has been said that those who voted for Dubya the first time around had four years to learn not to be surprised about him once they let him have a second go at it.
Notwithstanding how Big Brother will keep getting bigger no matter which major party is in power.

I dunno, gdZ... we killed the messenger here and the truth is still bubblin up in, of all places, Great Britain!! I believe that the truth will bubble up through the thickest of political I just dunno if it will happen in our lifetime..
As for Senslessbrenner... why is there not an active movement to vote this garbage out of office!!! Red, Blue, no matter.. seems we could unite behind this..