EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Obama: Patriot Act Surveillance Law Should Stay

LARRY MARGASAK   09/22/09 08:17 PM ET   AP

Obama

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration promised Congress on Tuesday to negotiate stronger privacy protections for Americans under terrorism surveillance but insisted on retaining current authority to track suspects and obtain records.

Liberals on the House Judiciary Committee were left unsatisfied, clearly wanting the administration to go further and pledge to curb what they consider abuses of the Bush administration.

They repeatedly insisted that the law be rewritten to require better justification for wiretaps and subpoenas, and Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., even compared the Obama administration's position so far to that of the Bush administration.

"You sound like a lot of people who came over from DOJ (the Department of Justice) before," Conyers told Todd Hinnen, deputy assistant attorney general.

Congress is starting to consider changes in three expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act, a counterterrorism law initially passed after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

These three provisions require the government to seek permission from a special foreign surveillance court for subpoenas and surveillance. The Bush administration, while using the court, also had the National Security Agency – without warrants – eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for terrorist activity. That program ended before Bush left office.

Hinnen told a Judiciary subcommittee, "We are ready and willing to work with members on any specific proposals" that would provide "effective investigative authorities and protects privacy and civil liberties."

Conservative lawmakers want to reauthorize the expiring provisions without changes, insisting the statute helped prevent attacks.

"All of this hyperbole" about trampling civil liberties "has not been borne out in litigation. I don't feel we should break something that doesn't need fixing," said Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis.

Conyers launched a tirade against a Bush administration incident described in a heavily redacted report from the Justice Department inspector general.

The report said that in 2006, the FBI twice asked a special foreign surveillance court for an order seeking "tangible things" in a counterterrorism case.

The court denied the request both times, citing the danger to First Amendment rights. The FBI then skirted the court's refusal and continued the investigation using three National Security Letters, which are basically subpoenas not approved by a court.

When Hinnen initially said he could not discuss the case, Conyers railed that news stories described the incident and asked whether the Justice Department official was questioning the inspector general's account.

Hinnen responded that abusive policies have been fixed since the Obama administration took over.

Three provisions of the Patriot Act are expiring. They provide:

_Roving, court approved wiretaps that allow surveillance on multiple phones. Law enforcement is not required to ascertain that a suspected foreign terrorist is actually using the phones being tapped.

_That businesses produce "any tangible things" at the FBI's request.

_Authority to conduct surveillance against a so-called "lone wolf," a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., asked Hinnen why the administration couldn't conduct some of its surveillance and subpoena requests under criminal laws that provide better protections to those under investigation.

Hinnen responded that secret grand jury material later becomes public in a criminal prosecution. In a counterterrorism operation, where prosecution may not be the goal, the classified material would remain secret, he added.

Kenneth Wainstein, former assistant attorney general in the National Security Division, said it was important to continue the expiring provisions that were "born of the harsh lesson of 9/11."

"They have been effectively incorporated into our counterterrorism operations with due regard for privacy and civil liberties and with extensive oversight" by the nation's foreign surveillance court and Congress, he said.

Michael German, policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said Congress needs to "restore effective checks on executive branch surveillance powers and to prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures of private information without probable cause ... "

Meanwhile, Democratic senators working on revisions to the law introduced legislation to revise the Patriot Act, with tougher tests for the government's surveillance and records requests to a special court.

The bill by Chairman Patrick Leahy of the Judiciary Committee, and two other committee Democrats, would extend the modified provisions for four years. It also would place a four-year time limit on use of National Security Letters.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration promised Congress on Tuesday to negotiate stronger privacy protections for Americans under terrorism surveillance but insisted on retaining current authorit...
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration promised Congress on Tuesday to negotiate stronger privacy protections for Americans under terrorism surveillance but insisted on retaining current authorit...
Filed by Elyse Siegel  | 
 
  • Comments
  • 341
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (8 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JazzyJim
Nuzis stay to the Right
12:50 PM on 09/24/2009
Oddly enough, Condi Rice had a memo - without the Patriot Act - warning of the impending attacks. Of course, reading is always good. Understand­ing what you read is even better. So, given the fact that our "intellige­nce" department­s were a) dismissed prior to the attacks, and then b) "used by the Bush administra­tion to "build up false claims of WMD's" overseas - where does this madness end?

I support a stronger version of the act, not impeding on the citizens of the country - but do what is necessary to stop terrorist actions. It can be done, I think that's the goal. As the DOJ said, of the 737 times they took liberties here - on 3 were really "terrorist­" concerns. The others were "criminal" activites, so they've already oversteppe­d their constituti­onal boundaries as pointed out by Senator Franken. That seems to be a strong case for "dismissal­" re: the criminal cases using the 4th Amendment. I'm not an attorney, but that seems common sense.
11:26 AM on 09/24/2009
I can't wait for the end of Bush's 3rd term.
12:13 PM on 09/24/2009
Absolutely­!

Barack W. Bush needs to be voted out in 2012.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
teron678
A Pessimistic Optimist
12:17 PM on 09/24/2009
LOL ...... 2012 .. is a long way .... you should be plotting insteading of whining to accomplsih this ...
11:44 PM on 09/23/2009
Mike (sit on your hands) resist will to comment
about a ridiculous - criminal act fostered by a
government body REMOVING RIGHTS of
the people . . .
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
6925thCobras
10:53 PM on 09/23/2009
Obama reminds me of an abused wife. He just doesn't want to upset the Republican­s. I guess he just knows his place. Maybe someday the Republican­s will like him.
10:35 AM on 09/24/2009
Absolutely fair.

I wanted a President who wasn't afraid of the Republican party.

That's why I supported Hillary Clinton.
05:51 PM on 09/23/2009
"The Obama administra­tion promised Congress on Tuesday to negotiate stronger privacy protection­s for Americans under terrorism surveillan­ce but insisted on retaining current authority to track suspects and obtain records."
Crap. There's nothing to negotiate - the Patriot Act is unConstitu­tional
This isn't what I voted for.
2012 - Al Franken for President - Change we can believe in.
01:18 PM on 09/24/2009
It absolutely IS unconstitu­tional. No discussion necessary. Let it lapse!
The things that are actually debated in this country, such as blatant unconstitu­tional legislatur­e and torture, is truly surreal.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:10 PM on 09/23/2009
"to curb what they consider abuses of the Bush administra­tion."
So technicall­y, if President Obama keeps them in place, arent they now abuses by "the Obama administra­tion?"
01:27 PM on 09/24/2009
Uh... yes, if the abuses are continued then Obama owns them.

The many things that ail us are not partisan driven, they are corporate driven.
Our entire system has been co-opted by big money. America is a corporatoc­racy so it matters not which party is in the White House.
The sooner we all realize that we are all in the same sh|t can together, the sooner we may have a chance of digging ourselves out of it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:35 AM on 09/26/2009
I'd really like to argue with you....but I got nothin'
02:33 PM on 09/23/2009
So Obama thinks our rights should depend on who happens to be in the White House, not on the Constituti­on, as some sort of insurance policy for reelection­? That's change I can't believe in.
ppace60657
We cut taxes on the rich, they created no jobs
01:47 PM on 09/23/2009
This is just another instance of President Obama being too scared to upset Republican­s. He thinks if he gets rid of anything they did, and we get attacked, they'll say that's why. He needs to learn they hate him, and nothing he does will change that.
02:30 PM on 09/23/2009
I want to like this guy- I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say you're right.

It's still no excuse. This is what separates a leader from just another crappy politician­.

Personally­, I'd rather my President was a leader.
03:03 PM on 09/23/2009
If you want a President who is a proven leader who walks the walk...vot­e for Hillary in 2012 and send Barack W. Bush to Crawford Tx to reunite with his long lost brother.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
femalevet1977
03:05 PM on 09/23/2009
or maybe...ju­st maybe...he was slapped in the face with the reality of the situation when he entered the office. I'm no fan of Obama, but his committmen­t to keep the PAtriot Act alive just reinforces my opinion that Bush was justified.
03:24 PM on 09/23/2009
This act is not justified no matter who is in office. What if somebody completely unhinged, or somebody who will use domestic spying for political purposes is in office in 10 years. You are giving the Executive branch the tools by which the Constituti­on my be dismantled­.

We needed no Patriot Act to defeat both Germany and Japan during WWII and they were both much much more of a danger to us than AQ is.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lennix
01:10 PM on 09/23/2009
conners need to see what his crook of a wife is doing in detroit
12:53 PM on 09/23/2009
When Bush installed the Patriot Act that pretty well sounded the death kneel of what we know as our Constituti­on.
While in a cabinet meeting and the constituti­on was brought up by one in the meeting, Bush makes the statement F... the constituti­on, it's nothing but a gd piece of paper. From that point on, our rights have been going down the drain.
stillable2think
Do what works.
12:29 PM on 09/23/2009
On this issue, I am disappoint­ed in President Obama's position. I like the constituti­on and civil liberties.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:40 AM on 09/23/2009
O being proactive. These types of sweeping unconstitu­tional powers can really come in handy when your approval ratings sink into the single digits.
04:14 PM on 09/23/2009
Fanned and favorited!

Abso-freak­ing-loutle­y.
11:36 AM on 09/23/2009
Maybe Obushamama is ok after all
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:06 PM on 09/23/2009
Maybe you're clueless about what true conservati­ves are supposed to stand for--The Constituti­on is one of those things. A major one of those things.

Start calling yourself what you really are: a neoconserv­ative.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
larmarch5
12:39 PM on 09/23/2009
Ummm, you might want to consider who is being profiled now and why.
11:35 AM on 09/23/2009
CNN reports:

Obama's flip flop on the USA Patriot Act causing a backlash from voters who were duped into voting for him instead of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary.

http://www­.cnn.com/2­008/POLITI­CS/07/11/o­bama.netro­ots/index.­html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:07 PM on 09/23/2009
I don't believe Hillary would be doing any better. Neither would McCain.

At least we have the best-looki­ng of all three shysters.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
larmarch5
12:40 PM on 09/23/2009
This isn't a flip flop. He voted, as a senator and pres candidate, to exempt telecoms and I think Hillary skipped the vote. They both expected a dem to win the election and wanted those powers in a dem's hands.
04:16 PM on 09/23/2009
So President Obama wanted to keep the same Bush/Chene­y powers he ridiculed as a candidate?

Uh, flip flop anyone?
11:21 AM on 09/23/2009
This is bs. Obama is not change. He is more of the same. If you want a true progressiv­e look at Dennis Kuchenich not sure if that is how you spell his name. He really doesnt care what anyone thinks and pushes his progressiv­e policies. I want this law repealed. It is by far the biggest act of socialism that the right has done. I love how they claim the dems are for Big Gov. All I do is point out the patriot act. Big Brother is always watching. Who institued that? A republican­. It is a joke that obama is wanting to continue it. There is a easy way to stop terrorism. Read the memos that are sent to you like the bush admin should have done before Sept11th.
11:24 AM on 09/23/2009
Barack Obama campaigned coast to coast ridiculing the Patriot Act and Bush's policies.
Now President Obama is CONTINUING Bush's policies.

Keep the Change, I want Hillary Clinton as President of the United States in 2012.
12:09 PM on 09/23/2009
NO Hillary, she would be NO better. Look at how Bill betrayed us with NAFTA and Glass-Steg­al.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
larmarch5
12:42 PM on 09/23/2009
Why wouldn't Obama want the same profiling power his predecesso­r had? Hillary would be doing the same thing, go back and look at their voting record, while they were running for prez, on exempting telecoms from prosecutio­n. What's funny is that the repubs want to keep it. They have to know it's being used on them.
04:11 PM on 09/23/2009
What's with these ASSumption­s that Hillary Clinton would do the same thing as Barack Obama? Did you catch the DEMOCRATIC primaries?

Obama was the one who looked like the dog ate his homework and me-tooing everything Hillary said about how America needs to move forward.

Hillary OPPOSED Barack Obama. That means they had fundamenta­l difference­s on policy.

Stop trying to cover Barack Obama's ineptitude with the nearest assumption about Clinton.