This post originally appeared at the London Review of Books blog.
Minutes before midnight on May 26, President Obama, in France, by a species of teleportable pen signed into law a four-year extension of the Patriot Act: the central domestic support of the security apparatus devised by the Bush administration, after the bombings of 11 September 2001 and the 'anthrax letters' a week later. The first Patriot Act passed the senate on 25 October 2001, by a vote of 98-1 -- the opposing vote coming from Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. In the years that followed, a minority view developed, which said that the Patriot Act 'went too far'; but its steadiest opponents have come from outside the mainstream media: the American Civil Liberties Union, the Cato Institute, and libertarian columnists such as Glenn Greenwald and Nat Hentoff.
In the last few days, two senators, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Mark Udall of Colorado, took up the mantle of Senator Feingold (who lost his bid for re-election in the anti-Obama midterm disaster of 2010). Both spoke against a government interpretation of the new Patriot Act, which has not yet been shared with the American people.
The senate as a whole voted (this time 72-23) to renew a law that citizens have had no opportunity to understand, as Wyden and Udall present it, and that few members of Congress have looked into, even to the limited extent allowed. The Patriot Act controls secret investigations. The government, however, according to Wyden, has a private understanding of the law. This interpretation has been classified. So the meaning of a law about secrets is hidden because the government's view of the law is itself a secret.
It would be wrong to see the latest curtain against transparency as marking a change of policy. True, Obama promised, in the Democratic primaries of 2008, to filibuster against a proposed amnesty for telecoms firms that illegally co-operated with a request by the Office of the Vice President to divulge information about their customers. The conduct of the telecoms firms was a violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which forbade eavesdropping on Americans without judicial oversight. But in July 2008, once Obama had secured the Democratic nomination, this became the first promise on which he reneged. It set a pattern for an administration that in its earliest days adopted a slogan which would cover many further amnesties: 'We look to the future, not the past.'
Civil liberties had never been a leading concern for Obama in earlier years. His short previous record in politics associated him with the use of government as a benign agency for the protection of citizens and the subsidized extension of social opportunity. When, from the office of state senator in Illinois and U.S. senator, he ascended to the presidency in 2009, he could no longer think of himself as an advocate of the less fortunate; rather, he was the protector of all Americans; and the responsibility for 'protection' of Americans (a paraconstitutional notion innovated by George W. Bush and picked up by Obama) involves an all-absorbing concern with safety against 'the terror threat'.
After three or four months of experiment, Obama's ratification of the post-2001 protection regime has been consistent. He has sacked advisers like Greg Craig, the White House counsel who argued that he should break with the Bush-Cheney commitment to the maintenance of Guantánamo and permanent detention. He did not fight to secure the senate confirmation of (among others) Dawn Johnsen, a constitutional libertarian and his initial nominee to head the Office of Legal Council. The present judgment of Obama about what constitutes a normal security policy goes by an instrument that was set in 2002. It is unlikely to be reset until the risk of doing so approaches zero.
Three elements of the Patriot Act have drawn persistent challenge. First, the 'lone wolf' provision, which allows the intelligence bureaucracy to launch and sustain surveillance of a person who has not been linked to any foreign power. Thanks to a second provision, the 'roving wiretap', a target of surveillance may remain a target even when he shifts his means of communication by a change of phone, postal address, email or other medium: no reapplication for a warrant is required, and no demonstration of probable cause. Finally, the 'business records provision' enables the searchers empowered by the Patriot Act to get a court order under FISA to seize 'tangible things' such as personal papers and records (the definition of relevant objects is elastic); and it denies a judge discretion to limit such a warrant to specific and designated items.
Obama apparently has come to share with Bush the belief about Americans that (in Bush's words) 'we are good'. But the danger of the surveillance state has nothing to do with the goodness or badness of the American people or our unseen protectors. It has to do with the psychology of power, and what power does to life. That power tends to corrupt is a law of human nature that does not alter whether one favours the power to punish the guilty or to protect the innocent. Corruption goes nicely with the idea of enhancing the secret powers of the state, for benevolent and protective purposes, on behalf of a people who are supposed incapable of judging how to protect themselves. The presumption of the knowing protector could be read in the upright posture of George W. Bush as he announced the retaliatory launching of American troops into war after war. It can now be read in the imposing sobriety of Barack Obama as he speaks of 'targeted assaults' by special forces, or of American 'kinetic activity' in support of air strikes by America's allies. The embrace of protection goes with an unconscious love of euphemism.
The tone of the present administration is more soothing than that of its predecessor. But ever since Obama gave his National Archives Speech, in May 2009, the continuities with Cheney-Bush have been unmistakable. Meanwhile, the attacks on President Obama by Dick Cheney, which played so large a part in precipitating that speech, in the past year or so have almost ceased. Cheney has in fact praised Obama for the maturity with which he has lately understood the proper responsibilities of his office. The tendency of Barack Obama in all his ventures of policy-making is to neutralise opposition much more than to enforce respect for principle. His admirers know the largeness of this appetite for concession. 'Isn't it,' they ask, 'a necessary precaution and a lesser evil?' But the hazard to American liberty from all enlargements of the post-2001 aberration comes simply from refusing to present the last decade as an aberration. This process of acquiescence was captured by George Kateb in 'A Life of Fear' (2004):
In the eyes of police and intelligence bureaucracies, constitutional protections for persons are obstacles to be removed or circumvented to the fullest allowable extent. The need for security is insatiable, and so is the inveterate bureaucratic passion for control. The two converge and for a while satisfy each other. The irony is that the fear felt by citizens can inhibit or paralyse them; but citizens' fear energizes leaders and officials and produces restless and indefatigable activity.
Our sleep grows tighter and more tranquillised in direct proportion to our dependence on these invisible guardians.
The automatic signing of the Patriot Act by the president in France marked an appropriate close to an episode of a larger campaign. In a recent New Yorker article, Jane Mayer reported on the prosecution by the Obama justice department of Thomas Drake, a former senior executive at the National Security Administration who faces 35 years in prison for sharing with a journalist certain illegal operations of the NSA. Drake is precisely the sort of conscientious whistleblower whom post-Watergate laws were put in place to defend. The particular offences he opened to view were among those Obama as a candidate had vowed never to pardon. Yet as Mayer reports, more persons are being prosecuted under the Espionage Act by the Obama administration than by all previous administrations combined. Mayer also quotes Bill Binney, the inventor of a tracking tool which, against his intentions, was deployed to collect information on Americans; Binney 'believes that the agency now stores copies of all emails transmitted in America, in case the government wants to retrieve the details later'. These details constitute a database which may be as easily searchable as an old newspaper article on Google.
Binney has said with remorse, 'I should apologise to the American people,' since the tool he meant for other purposes 'has violated everyone's rights' and 'can be used to eavesdrop on the whole world'. The apology stands in contrast to the amnesty delivered to the offenders by the president and his attorney general. Of course, none of these proceedings is compatible with the usual understanding of Obama as a reformer and a respecter of American traditions of freedom. Yet, under the endlessly forgiving label of 'pragmatist', this president has devised a system of mental bookkeeping that is at once complex and simple. It is the belief of Barack Obama that his being the president of the United States is good for the world regardless of what he does.
Sen. Ron Wyden and Sen. Mark Udall: How Can Congress Debate a Secret Law?
Congress Renews Patriot Act, Obama Signs Remotely | The Moderate Voice
Patriot Act: Obama approves Patriot Act provisions - latimes.com
Obama signs Patriot Act extension without reforms - CSMonitor.com
Obama seeks longer PATRIOT Act extension than Republicans | The ...
Autopen, not Obama, signs Patriot Act extension into law - Yahoo! News
Repeat as needed....
Not signing the patriot act right after taking out Bin Ladin would have been a mistake for 2 reason.
#1 It would show America is letting its guard down concerning HOMELAND defense. Drawing down and reducing troops in Afghanistan would not have the same negative effect because this is the homeland we are referring to, not a forieng country.
#2 The timing would be horible as extremists aren't simply going to "stop" now that their leader is gone. US federal agencies should be even more vigilant in light of recent events.
I realize a lot of people dislike this act, but it is a necessary evil required in order to track extremists. As the language from the Act implies, the Act allows for investigations to begin within a shorter time span rather than having to wait. As congressional represenatives have already indicated, it only targets a handful and is not intended to target law abinding citizens. While a few Americans have been unfairly targetted, the cons of dropping the patriot act are unfortunately greater than the pros of dropping it. Hopefully in 4 years, we will be out of Afghan and Iraq, and be in a better position to start repealing the act.
The Patriot Act isn't really about keeping us safe. It's about eroding the Constitution and keeping us less free.
Continued.....
Neo-Conservatives are much strong proponents of pre-emptive strike in what they see as a severe threat to Americans, where as Authoritarian Democrats are stronger proponents of dimplomacy first in almost all cases. However both positions favor engaging in conflict if they see the country or organization as a threat to international and american stability. Democratic Authoritarians are also more favorably of joint international action, which means NATO at the minimum. While Neo-cons desire international support, they will use a small allied coalition if enough international support cannot be garnered. BOTH believe in spreading democracy as a means of international stability and both ultimately favor diplomacy. I think the issue comes in that both are not affraid to go into combat as they see American excpetionalism = not turning a blind eye.
Both Auth Dems and Neo-Cons are considered more homeland/military/security issues conservative and are generally less conservative on social and fiscal issues. Even Bush was less fiscally conservative than most GOPers. However, Auth Dems could be considered foreign policy moderates as they emphasize working with the international community as a high priority.
The tendency of Barack Obama in all his ventures of policy-making is to neutralize opposition much more than to enforce respect for principle.
There is no real principle on which Obama stands. Can one person here truly say they know where Obama's principle's lie? He sold the nation on the fact he had principle when campaigning in 2008 that is what people voted for.
If President Obama decided to not agree to sign it , it would go back to Congress to collect enough votes to override his veto . During the first term of any President he/she must not make any new enemies in Congress . Otherwise getting reelected could be next to impossible .
Senator Obama was the junior of the junior Senators and seniority is very important in Congress . But Senator Obama did not take his time and do a life time of Congressional service before he jumped head in the line .
Many members of Congress are not too crazy about him being a success so even members of his own party have filibustered some of his proposals . And as long the media points fingers at the President the less apt Congress will change from the good times of the last administration .
We no longer have any checks and balances and I suspect that if Congress were to challenge the imperial presidency in any substantial manner, they'd be threatened once again by martial law. We have become a banana republic. The saddest part is that most of us are utterly unaware of what has happened.
The automatic signing of the Patriot Act by the president in Paris marked an appropriate close to an episode of a larger campaign. In a recent New Yorker article, Jane Mayer reported on the prosecution by the Obama justice department of Thomas Drake, a former senior executive at the National Security Administration who faces 35 years in prison for sharing with a journalist certain illegal operations of the NSA. Drake is precisely the sort of conscientious whistleblower whom post-Watergate laws were put in place to defend. The particular offences he opened to view were among those Obama as a candidate had vowed never to pardon.
Yet as Mayer reports, more persons are being prosecuted under the Espionage Act by the Obama administration than by all previous administrations combined.
Mayer also quotes Bill Binney, the inventor of a tracking tool which, against his intentions, was deployed to collect information on Americans; Binney 'believes that the agency now stores copies of all emails transmitted in America, in case the government wants to retrieve the details later'. These details constitute a database which may be as easily searchable as an old newspaper article on Google.
Got that? All Email stored. Like if they opened every letter and photocopied it for a file, just like in the old Soviet Union, East Germany etc.
Obama is no friend of our Bill of Rights!!!
The presidents, both Bush and Obama and whoever wins in 2012, take an oath to protect the constitution and the citizens of the United States. That perspective of being the person sworn to do that, gives one a different perspective than a college professor or common Joe or Jane sipping their lattes and discussing the weather and their liberties.
I would if I could, but it is secret.
America would shut down until regular service was returned. But when the Patriot Act is introduced and maintained into the American lifestyle all people can do is argue-to zero effect.
I can't even say nice going as citizens because I am reading these comments and thinking: What kind of parents and families are these? Who ARGUES for governmental regulations that can legally and literally shut down(or end really) theirs and their kids' lives down for no decent purpose?
Seriously? This is the plan? For how long does everyone think the finger-pointing and arguing is going to work to really change such things?
Perhaps the fake Al-Qaeda will have Adam Gadahn make you another terrorist video. That way you can send your teenage daughters and sons to die. That way you can all be REALLY proud to get on TV, wave at your neighbors, and cry for the cameras.
You will get to say you got to bury your kids over governmental nonsense(AKA American "pride")-rather than saying you were such a good parent that you actually helped your kid to LIVE and survive the burdens of fighting unnecessary social and military battles.
The World English Dictionary defines "terrorist" as "a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon", and "terrorism" as "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes". The Patriot Act (was there ever another law so inappropriately named? well, yes, including the "healthy forests initiative", but I digress) and its "interpretation" have led to unlimited spying on American citizens by our government, a constant deluge of propaganda designed to leave citizens afraid of their own shadows (and even more of their neighbors' shadows), the knowledge that certain politicians can make you "disappear" into the maw of the security system and never again be allowed to communicate with the outside world.
This is obviously "the use of [threats] to intimidate or coerce, for political purposes", making components of our government -- including the current and most recent President, roughly half of Congress, and several agencies -- fit the definition of a "terrorist [organization]".
So who is going to "protect" us against those terrorists?