Back in 2005, then-Senator Barack Obama had this to say opposing The Patriot Act when it came up then for reauthorization: "We do not have to settle for a Patriot Act that sacrifices our liberties or our safety. We can have one that secures both."
Throughout his entire presidential campaign, Obama often railed against the Act, criticizing it giving authorization for the Bush administration to secretly spy on U.S. citizens, illegally and unconstitutionally and with little or no judicial or congressional oversight.
He pledged that he would institute "robust" checks and balances if he got elected, explicitly promising to overturn its unconstitutional sneak-and-peek provisions toward citizens not even suspected of a crime. "Warrantless surveillance of American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and unconstitutional," he said.
Now tomorrow, President Obama is set to sign into law an unamended extension of that same Patriot Act, a bill that preserves every element of the policy he objected to in 2005. It's all still in there.
Democrats claim that they wanted to institute new safeguards to protect law-abiding American citizens, but that the Republicans said the changes would undermine the tracking of people suspected of plotting terrorism.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said he would have preferred to add improvements to any extension, but that some Republican senators objected to that.
Although the Democrats did actually come up with compromise legislation, worked it out in the Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate, that whole thing got scrapped; no matter that it sort of did what Obama said he had intended to do.
Bottom line is this, that despite all the big talk up until now, the Democrats are afraid that any attempt to amend The Patriot Act might set off the Republicans to start calling them "soft on terrorism" or some such thing, here in the run-up to the mid-term elections.
The Republicans pointed to the fact that the provisions are necessary, of course. Just see how: the failed attempt by that underpants guy from Nigeria to blow up a plane in Detroit, also the shooting rampage in Texas by that military psychiatrist who had been chatting up some Yemeni guy.
Because, I guess, that proves something somehow. Never minding that the provisions set forth in the Patriot Act played no part whatsoever in the plane landing safely, nor in stopping the shooting spree.
It really doesn't matter what nonsense the Republicans jabber about, though, keeping this literally unwarrantable policy intact. The Democrats were bound to cave to anything, what with November not so far away and trying to make nice.
Many of Obama's first supporters have become über critical of the president over the past year, for this or that. Generally, I find most of their attacks undeserved and usually stupid. As for this Patriot Act deal, though, I have to admit that this is not the change I believed in.
Throughout his entire presidential campaign, Obama often railed against the Act, criticizing it giving authorization for the Bush administration to secretly spy on U.S. citizens, illegally and unconstitutionally and with little or no judicial or congressional oversight.
He pledged that he would institute "robust" checks and balances if he got elected, explicitly promising to overturn its unconstitutional sneak-and-peek provisions toward citizens not even suspected of a crime. "Warrantless surveillance of American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and unconstitutional," he said.
Now tomorrow, President Obama is set to sign into law an unamended extension of that same Patriot Act, a bill that preserves every element of the policy he objected to in 2005. It's all still in there.
- The "roving wiretap" provision, allowing the government to in secret wiretap and eavesdrop on any person, without a warrant.
- The demanding of institutions to turn over whatever personal records, even library and bookstore records, without probable cause.
- The "lone wolf" provision, which amended the definition of "agent of a foreign power" to include anyone, whether or not the government can establish a link to a foreign government or terrorist organization.
Democrats claim that they wanted to institute new safeguards to protect law-abiding American citizens, but that the Republicans said the changes would undermine the tracking of people suspected of plotting terrorism.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said he would have preferred to add improvements to any extension, but that some Republican senators objected to that.
Although the Democrats did actually come up with compromise legislation, worked it out in the Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate, that whole thing got scrapped; no matter that it sort of did what Obama said he had intended to do.
Bottom line is this, that despite all the big talk up until now, the Democrats are afraid that any attempt to amend The Patriot Act might set off the Republicans to start calling them "soft on terrorism" or some such thing, here in the run-up to the mid-term elections.
The Republicans pointed to the fact that the provisions are necessary, of course. Just see how: the failed attempt by that underpants guy from Nigeria to blow up a plane in Detroit, also the shooting rampage in Texas by that military psychiatrist who had been chatting up some Yemeni guy.
Because, I guess, that proves something somehow. Never minding that the provisions set forth in the Patriot Act played no part whatsoever in the plane landing safely, nor in stopping the shooting spree.
It really doesn't matter what nonsense the Republicans jabber about, though, keeping this literally unwarrantable policy intact. The Democrats were bound to cave to anything, what with November not so far away and trying to make nice.
Many of Obama's first supporters have become über critical of the president over the past year, for this or that. Generally, I find most of their attacks undeserved and usually stupid. As for this Patriot Act deal, though, I have to admit that this is not the change I believed in.
Just one more reason why I think politics is disgusting! The health care "debate" being another.
ReplyDeleteIt's all politics, I know, I just get extra disappointed when Obama pisses me off because I honestly think his motives are, or were, at least somewhat above it, even though I understand it turned out tougher than he thought to cut through so much crap.
ReplyDeleteWell said, D-Ro,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Obama more than I disagree with him. That said, I really enjoyed your post and I agree with all your points. Even if you are a "whack"... LOL!