Vol. 75/No. 9      March 7, 2011

While the bill passed with a large bipartisan majority in both the House and Senate, there was also opposition to the extension from both Democratic and Republican legislators. Eight members of the Tea Party Caucus in the House of Representatives voted against the bill along with 18 other Republicans and most House Democrats. The Senate approved the extension 86 to 12.

Two of the provisions were part of the original Patriot Act, which was passed after the September 2001 attack on the World Trade Center in a drive to undermine the Bill of Rights under the pretext of fighting terrorism. A handful of provisions of the Patriot Act have to be renewed periodically.

President Barack Obama wants these and other provisions extended to at least 2013. Hearings are planned before another vote on extending or making the powers permanent.

“While I agree that law enforcement and national security agencies need the tools necessary to keep America safe from terrorism,” said Republican congressman Raúl Labrador of Idaho, a tea party supporter, in defense of his “no” vote. “We need to be sure we are not infringing upon the protections and freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution.”

Writing in the conservative magazine National Review, Nathan Sales, who says he helped write the Patriot Act as a Justice Department lawyer, claimed that the law “contains strict safeguards to protect civil liberties” because FBI agents “have to appear before a court and convince it that there’s probable cause.”

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) courts that review the cops’ requests, however, operate in secret and generally rubber stamp government spy operations. By 2008 FISA courts had turned down only five of 19,000 requests.

State and local governments are also seeking more ways to undermine constitutional rights.

The New York State Unified Court System and the New York State Bar Association just released a report detailing the state’s broad powers to declare a state of emergency and then “establish curfews, quarantine wide areas, close businesses, restrict public assemblies, and under certain circumstances, suspend local ordinances.”

Although the book has the innocuous title of “Public Health Legal Manual,” the potential suspension of rights, including carrying out warrantless searches and confiscation of property, is planned not only for the outbreak of disease, but other “man-made catastrophic threats.”  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home