FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

A Raw Deal on the Patriot Act

I understand that some of my friends and colleagues in the Senate have come to an agreement with the White House on reauthorizing the Patriot Act.

While I respect these Senators greatly, I am gravely disappointed in this so-called deal. The White House agreed to only a few minor changes to the Patriot Act conference report that could not get through the Senate back in December. These changes do not address the major problems with the Patriot Act that a bipartisan coalition has been trying to fix for the past several years. We’ve come too far and fought too hard to agree to reauthorize the Patriot Act without fixing those problems. A few insignificant changes just doesn’t cut it. I cannot support this deal, and I will do everything I can to stop it.

I understand the pressure that my colleagues have been under on this issue, and I appreciate all the hard work that they have done on the Patriot Act. It has been very gratifying to work on a bipartisan basis on this issue. It is unfortunate that the White House is so obviously trying to make this into a partisan issue, because it sees some political advantage to doing so. Whether the White House likes it or not, this will continue to be an issue where both Democrats and Republicans have concerns, and we will continue to work together for changes to the law. I am sure of that.

But I will also continue to strongly oppose any reauthorization of the Patriot Act that does not protect the rights and freedoms of law-abiding Americans with no connection to terrorism. This deal does not meet that standard – it doesn’t even come close.

The Patriot Act conference report, combined with the few changes announced today, does not address the core issues that our bipartisan group of Senators have been concerned about for the last several years. The modest but critical changes we have been pushing are not included. I am not talking about new issues. We are talking about the same issues that concerned us when we first introduced the SAFE Act more than two years ago to fix the Patriot Act. And we have laid them out in detail in several different letters over the past few months.

First, and most importantly, the deal does not ensure that the government can only obtain the library, medical and other sensitive business records of people who have some link to suspected terrorists. This is the Section 215 issue, which has been at the center of this debate over the Patriot Act.

Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the government to obtain secret court orders in domestic intelligence investigations to get all kinds of business records about people, including not just library records, but also medical records and various other types of business records. The Senate bill that this body passed by unanimous consent back in July would have ensured that the government cannot use this power to go after someone who has no connection whatsoever to a terrorist or spy or their activities. The conference report replaces the Senate test with a simple relevance standard, which is not adequate protection against a fishing expedition. And the deal struck today leaves that provision of the conference report unchanged.

Second, the deal does not provide meaningful judicial review of the gag orders placed on recipients of Section 215 business records orders and National Security Letters. Under the deal, such review can only take place after a year has passed and can only be successful if the recipient proves that that government has acted in bad faith. The deal ignores the serious First Amendment problem with the gag rule under current law. In fact, it arguably makes the law worse in this area.

And third, the deal does not ensure that when government agents secretly break into the homes of Americans to do a so-called “sneak and peek” search, they tell the owners of those homes in most circumstances within seven days, as courts have said they should, and as the Senate bill did.

As I understand it, this deal only makes a few small changes. It would permit judicial review of a Section 215 gag order, but under conditions that would make it very difficult for anyone to obtain meaningful judicial review. It would state specifically that the government can serve National Security Letters on libraries if the library comes within the current requirements of the NSL statute, a provision that as I read it, just restates current law. And it would clarify that people who receive a National Security Letter would not have to tell the FBI if they consult with an attorney. This last change is a positive step, but it is only one relatively minor change.

So this deal comes nowhere near the significant, but very reasonable, changes in the law that I believe are a necessary part of any reauthorization package. We weren’t asking for much. We weren’t even asking for changes that would get us close to the bill that this body passed without objection last July. But the White House would not be reasonable and has forced a deal that is not satisfactory in an effort to serve their partisan purposes.

I will oppose it, and I will fight it.

Russell Feingold is the junior senator from Wisconsin.

More articles by:

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees.

Weekend Edition
April 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Ruling Class Operatives Say the Darndest Things: On Devils Known and Not
Conn Hallinan
The Great Game Comes to Syria
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Mother of War
Andrew Levine
“How Come?” Questions
Doug Noble
A Tale of Two Atrocities: Douma and Gaza
Kenneth Surin
The Blight of Ukania
Howard Lisnoff
How James Comey Became the Strange New Hero of the Liberals
William Blum
Anti-Empire Report: Unseen Persons
Lawrence Davidson
Missiles Over Damascus
Patrick Cockburn
The Plight of the Yazidi of Afrin
Pete Dolack
Fooled Again? Trump Trade Policy Elevates Corporate Power
Stan Cox
For Climate Mobilization, Look to 1960s Vietnam Before Turning to 1940s America
William Hawes
Global Weirding
Dan Glazebrook
World War is Still in the Cards
Nick Pemberton
In Defense of Cardi B: Beyond Bourgeois PC Culture
Ishmael Reed
Hollywood’s Last Days?
Peter Certo
There Was Nothing Humanitarian About Our Strikes on Syria
Dean Baker
China’s “Currency Devaluation Game”
Ann Garrison
Why Don’t We All Vote to Commit International Crimes?
LEJ Rachell
The Baddest Black Power Artist You Never Heard Of
Lawrence Ware
All Hell Broke Out in Oklahoma
Franklin Lamb
Tehran’s Syria: Lebanon Colonization Project is Collapsing
Donny Swanson
Janus v. AFSCME: What’s It All About?
Will Podmore
Brexit and the Windrush Britons
Brian Saady
Boehner’s Marijuana Lobbying is Symptomatic of Special-Interest Problem
Julian Vigo
Google’s Delisting and Censorship of Information
Patrick Walker
Political Dynamite: Poor People’s Campaign and the Movement for a People’s Party
Fred Gardner
Medical Board to MDs: Emphasize Dangers of Marijuana
Rob Seimetz
We Must Stand In Solidarity With Eric Reid
Missy Comley Beattie
Remembering Barbara Bush
Wim Laven
Teaching Peace in a Time of Hate
Thomas Knapp
Freedom is Winning in the Encryption Arms Race
Mir Alikhan
There Won’t be Peace in Afghanistan Until There’s Peace in Kashmir
Robert Koehler
Playing War in Syria
Tamara Pearson
US Shootings: Gun Industry Killing More People Overseas
John Feffer
Trump’s Trade War is About Trump Not China
Morris Pearl
Why the Census Shouldn’t Ask About Citizenship
Ralph Nader
Bill Curry on the Move against Public Corruption
Josh Hoxie
Five Tax Myths Debunked
Leslie Mullin
Democratic Space in Adverse Times: Milestone at Haiti’s University of the Aristide Foundation
Louis Proyect
Syria and Neo-McCarthyism
Dean Baker
Finance 202 Meets Economics 101
Abel Cohen
Forget Gun Control, Try Bullet Control
Robert Fantina
“Damascus Time:” An Iranian Movie
David Yearsley
Bach and Taxes
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail