When the House passed a 10-month extension of key provisions of the Patriot Act last night, it was assumed that the Senate would follow suit quickly. And they will vote on the measure tonight. However, they will narrow the extension to three months, in a move with bipartisan support.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), chair of the Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said on Tuesday that Senate Democrats were likely to agree to an extension of controversial provisions in the Patriot Act, but only for a matter of months.
The Connecticut Independent, relaying talks that had occurred moments earlier in a caucus meeting among Democrats, said that discussion had centered around keeping the law in place “until May.”
Lieberman supports extending these provisions of the Patriot Act basically until the end of time, but he agreed to the 3-month extension. And so did the Senate Republican leadership, apparently. There will be a vote on this tonight.
Lieberman also referred to “ongoing investigations” that require the powers – roving wiretaps, national security letters, and the “lone wolf” provision that allows for investigating someone without known links to terrorist groups – in the short term. But instead of making that the basis for a long-term extension, it led to this three-month extension, with an opportunity to fully debate the issue before May.
Who pulled the plug on what looked like an inexorable march to a long-term extension? I know that Rand Paul sent a Dear Colleague letter last night urging his fellow Senators to vote against re-authorization, but I doubt he has the juice to convince 40 members. He would be able to hold it up for a while, which probably necessitated this change. In addition, Patrick Leahy, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over the law, wanted some minor reforms to it put in place, so he could potentially be a roadblock here as well.
Ultimately, this probably only means that the Senate will spend a week of debate three months from now and then extend the whole thing past the Presidential election. But it’s so rare that civil libertarians see even a minor speed bump in the rush to deprive liberty, and even with the three-month extension, that’s what this represents.
If we just changed the name of the Patriot Act to the “emergency law,” do you think we could get the President to call for lifting it, like he did with Egypt’s?
UPDATE: The Senate passed this tonight, 86-12.




27 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
“If we just changed the name of the Patriot Act to the “emergency law,” do you think we could get the President to call for lifting it, like he did with Egypt’s?’ ; **GG** !!
What’s going on here?
I’m guessing Lieberman wants to use this as the opportunity to bring up his cybersecurity bill.
If we named it the patriout stimulus act, you may see the President run from it.
Al Franken voted “Yea”. WTF? And I don’t mean Win the Future.
I didn’t know that: –
The Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Jennifer Stoddart, is an Officer of Parliament who reports directly to the House of Commons and the Senate.
The Commissioner is an advocate for the privacy rights of Canadians and her powers include:
* Investigating complaints, conducting audits and pursuing court action under two federal laws;
* Publicly reporting on the personal information-handling practices of public and private sector organizations;
* Supporting, undertaking and publishing research into privacy issues; and
* Promoting public awareness and understanding of privacy issues.
http://www.priv.gc.ca/aboutUs/index_e.cfm
Seriously, all we can get on this is 12 votes? These people cannot even vote symbolically against something that was going to cruise to victory?
If I had a Senator, they would be getting an earful.
What if somebody researches what words in emails trigger the Patriot Act and then everybody does it, early and often. Wouldn’t that be awful. Worse than Stuxnet. Now I don’t advocate this, I’m just sayin’ how bad it would be.
I regularly say “bomb” and “al qaeda” when talking on land lines because I read somewhere that those trigger flags in the system.
Anyone have a list of the 12 who voted against?
Never mind — just saw the Ed. Note at the top. Thanks : )
Read somewhere that my slick, faux-cornpone senator, Chuck-”gosh-I’m-just-regular-folks”-Grassley wants to make any extension of the Patriot Act permanent.
America’s commitment to privacy and civil rights is toast. Obama has enshrined the worst ideology of Bush II, and rendered it bipartisan. Journalism, in any mainstream sense is now a fringe activity. Media is essentially a profitable inertia generator. No matter how outrageous the exposes of financial and criminal malfeasance by the powerful, nothing happens.
Fear of the “other”, fear of the powerful or fear of loss has consumed America.
Unfortunately, in it’s internal memos of secret negotiations regarding the North American perimeter, the right-wing Prime Minister of Canada has identified the Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart as a problem to be “contained and managed”. Unless Canadians turf their current administration, Mexico will become North America’s last best hope for democracy.
Scary.
So. What’s behind a three-month extension?
-Push it down the road so the sheeple forget and (hopefully) don’t notice when it comes up again?
-Hold it open for three months ’cause something better/worse is coming?
-Do this ineffective short-term deal so you can proclaim bipartisanship on something?
Seriously, what’s the point? Maybe it’s the end of the day, but it just doesn’t make any sense.
Rand Paul.
Right after the House passed it yesterday the Senate tried to pass a three year extension by unanimous consent, the same way the last extension was passed, but Rand Paul objected, which was all it took to force a recorded vote. http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=40759
However, 80+ voted for the 90 day extension, so he needs a little support.
Any of you progressive types feel up to calling your Senators on this, by any chance?
I’d call mine, but she Diane Feinstein…
Still worth it (even if it does not change her vote).
You know the one, past chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
There is not a single bill that takes away personal freedoms that she hasn’t voted for.
The woman knows no boundaries when it comes to looking strong on “defense.”
If she could, she would make the patriot act permanent.
Sorry, but I won’t waste my time calling her.
Yeah, really, Allan, WTF?
All the Dems from WA (except for McDermott) voted “yea”. If you’re from WA, you need to get on the phone. My rep is a freshman, Jaime Herrera Beutler (Rethug), but I accosted her by email and phone anyway.
This is a split district, and it seesaws frequently. WA-3′s last rep, Brian Baird (D – Quisling) got ousted probably because Obummer had worked his magic on preemptive surrender on everything, and sent the youth vote to sunnier climes. The parties have come so identical on so many key issues, I don’t even see much difference; I mean, Beutler can’t be worse than Linda Smith (1995-1999).
Right. Might as well call a rock.
I think that’s spelled “Elle Kay-D’oh”.
sorry you were so surprised by Al. He is just as good of a con man as obama. he is a Clinton guy and loves wars and was totally in support of Mubarak for the security of Israel. He has so many people believing he is progressive and he is just a huge lie. Hopefully, people will wake up. See he does not give a rats ass about the 1st amendment or the 4th or anything that would not support his wealthy donors.
I just took the advice of post one and contacted al franken and amy klobacher and asked them to change the name to emergency law so they could support it even though we know they do not care if Egypt lift the law or not just like these 2 voted for the patriot act. It is worthless because these folks don’t care what we think, but at least it is fun to call them on their hypocricy.
thanks for that info. another reason, it does not matter which party we vote for. I would almost have to vote for him even if he is a wacko, at least he knows about the 1st and 4th amendment
Do you mean Senator Dianne Feinstein — the ninth wealthiest member of congress—who has been beset by monumental ethical conflicts of interest? As a member of the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee (MILCON) from 2001 to the end of 2005, Senator Feinstein voted for appropriations worth billions of dollars to her husband’s firms, including Perini Construction.
It is estimated that Perini now holds at least $2.5 billion worth of contracts tied to the worldwide expansion of the US military. Its largest Department of Defense contracts are “indefinite delivery-indefinite quantity” or “bundled” contracts carrying guaranteed profit margins. As of May 2006, Perini held a series of bundled contracts awarded by the Army Corps of Engineers for work in the Middle East worth $1.725 billion. Perini has also been awarded an open-ended contract by the US Air Force for military construction and cleaning the environment at closed military bases.
I do that at the bottom of every email in very small letters:
bomb CIA Al-Qaeda terrorist drugs cocaine heroin meth murder
So when are we the people going to stand up and kick them all out. It is obvious they work not for us, but against us. They only have power for as long as we go along with it. Is it time yet to kick them all out, or should we just sit back and let them screw us further?
Sigh, me too, but she’s pushing that three year thing and should at least know she’s been in a fight.
Here’s Rand Paul on the floor opposing it, and she comes up next. She and the presiding officer both look like they are suffering from indigestion after this speech skims through some of the abuses. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwPKSLJzwjA