Obama move to protect, rather than fix, Patriot Act.

[Lord Insanity]

A friend sent me this link.

While battling the FBI's expanded surveillance guidelines, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., also revealed (Daily Kos, Oct. that in the Senate Judiciary Committee review of the Patriot Act (also Oct. , Republicans protecting the Act were joined, in a closed-door classified session, by Obama officials with amendments further preserving it. Then, in a public session, all but three Democrats voted for a watered-down "compromise" bill by Patrick Leahy and Diane Feinstein.

Feingold, Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and new Democrat Arlen Specter (Pa.) had the constitutional courage to oppose the Judiciary Committee bill eventually going to the floor that with few exceptions, leaves the Patriot Act intact. I'll be reporting on the crucial fight to bring the Bill of Rights back into the Patriot Act as Senate and House versions merge into a law to be signed by Obama as he continues the Bush-Cheney legacy.

It was Feingold who, in October 2001, was the only member of the Senate to vote against the original Patriot Act as, on the floor, he accurately predicted our greatly weakened privacy, due process and other rights since then.

He is not giving up. "In the end," Feingold says. "Democrats have to decide if they are going to stand up for the rights of the American people" or (for recent example) "allow the FBI to write our laws."

As I have reported, the FBI is already writing our laws - without going to any judge. How much have you seen about the FBI's locking up of the Fourth Amendment on cable and broadcast television (from the right- or the left-leaning stations) in newspapers, on the Internet or, of course, from the Democratic Congressional leadership, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, characteristically indifferent to the Bush-Cheney-Obama assaults on the Bill of Rights?

As James Madison warned, "A people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives."

When were the first FBI guidelines on domestic surveillance and why? In the 1970s, Sen. Frank Church of Idaho, chairman of a Senate Committee on Intelligence Activities, exposed FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's COINTELPRO (Counter-intelligence Program) as an omnivorous surveillance operation that aimed squarely at preventing Americans "exercise of First Amendment rights of speech and association."

If Big Brother is always watching you, you become careful of what you say and with whom you associate.

The Church committee's revelations resulted in the then-attorney general, Edward Levi (a former professor of constitutional law), and Congressman Don Edwards formulating the first FBI guidelines specifically faithful to the Constitution.

When I was reporting on Edwards' congressional service (1962 to 1995), I often described him as the "The Congressman from the Constitution." As chairman of the House Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, Edwards, a former FBI agent, set standards for congressional oversight of the FBI.

Under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, these standards have become obsolete.

I commend to every member of Congress and their constituents what Edwards said in 1975 about the Church committee's newly disclosed unbounded, warrantless standards of FBI surveillance of Americans who might "threaten" national security. And compare the Don Edwards' definition of fundamental American civil liberties with those of present Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director Robert Mueller - and their astonishingly permissive standards of FBI accountability.

"No federal agency," said Congressman Edwards, "the CIA, the IRS, or the FBI, can be at the same time policeman, prosecutor, judge and jury. That is what constitutionally guaranteed due process is all about. It may sometimes be disorderly and unsatisfactory to some, but it is the essence of freedom."

The Constitution, Edwards continued, does not permit "federal interference" with Americans' speech or associations, and other such citizen constitutional rights, "except through the criminal justice system, armed with its ancient safeguards." Like mandated judicial supervision - absent from current Obama administration FBI surveillance guidelines.

Edwards regarded as "subversive" the "notion that any public official - the president or a policeman - possesses a kind of inherent power to set aside the Constitution whenever he thinks the public interest, or 'national security' warrants it."

Don Edwards represented the Constitution we are losing.

On Aug. 10, 2002, in Washington, Don Edwards received the American Bar Association's Thurgood Marshall Award for his "unswerving devotion to the Constitution and its values throughout his career."

How many present members of Congress do you believe qualify for that award? Any of the Senate or House members representing you? Unhesitatingly, I nominate Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin.

It was in 2002 that I asked Don Edwards what he thought of the then Bush-Cheney definition of the Bill of Rights. "Locking people up," he began, "citizens or noncitizens, without being charged and without access to a lawyer is wrong." But our Nobel Prize-winning President Obama is seriously considering "permanent detention" of terrorism suspects who cannot be tried in court because of the tortures they have undergone under American custody. This same president does not object to the current warrantless FBI surveillance of Americans without evidence, for reasons of "national security." Would you give Obama a Liberty Medal?

Despite being an opinion peice I am assuming this article is mostly accurate. I know the writer wrote a few articles raking Dubbya over the coals for the Patriot Act, unlawful imprisonment, etc. and was looking forward to Obama ending that crap. Didn't Obama make a campaign promise to do just that.

[Edi]

Glenn Greenwald has written extensively about this issue and puts it very plainly. There is, for all intents and purposes, no difference at all between the Bush DoJ and the Obama DoJ or between the administrations where this issue is concerned. Obama has no intention of keeping his campaign promises and he's had enough time and then some to address some of this shit.

Hell, he could have just let the court challenges wear it down, but instead his DoJ has at every turn held on to and even furthered the bullshit we saw under Bush, especially with the state secrets = executive immunity = President equals king/emperor/god canard.

The most recent example is the Second Circuit Court's dismissal of the Maher Arar case on the basis that the courts cannot interfere with the Executive Branch because it might inconvenience them, even though it is a clearcut case of blatant, deliberate lawbreaking that was brought before them.

[Rogue 9]

"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." - Frederick Douglass

Seriously, did anyone think, even for a second, that the government would voluntarily lay down such powers once it had them? That never happens. As long as it can reasonably get away with it, the government will just keep doing what it's doing; unless there's sufficient public outcry accompanied by sufficient voting the bums out, we'll never see any action to remove the PATRIOT Act powers.

[Qwerty 42]

If it weren't for how disastrous the Republican party looks right now, I'd consider voting that way in 2012.

[darthdavid]

If it weren't for how disastrous the Republican party looks right now, I'd consider voting that way in 2012.

Yes because it's not like they're the ones who created the damned thing in the first place or anyth... oh wait.

[Chris OFarrell]

Meh, same over here.

NSW Police got so-called 'APEC' powers they didn't need in the slightest for the APEC conference...and they have yet to 'give them back' funny enough.

[Darth Wong]

What promises did Obama actually make regarding the Patriot Act? I didn't follow the US political campaign with the same level of scrutiny that Americans did, but I don't recall him ever saying he would scrap it. I thought the most he ever said was that he would "revisit" it or some other such non-commital thing, or maybe increase government oversight over activities related to it.

As I said many times during the campaign, Obama is not a left-winger. He's a centrist. In America, that means "Keep the Patriot Act but fiddle with it a bit".

[Coyote]

I have to admit, we did drink a lot of Kool-Aide on that one. On HuffPo, for example, a lot of people are dismayed that we haven't gotten universal health care and other high-profile leftist agendas pushed through yet. The Obama admin is clearly trying to work up a deal that appeases just enough left-wing groups to have a chance at re-election while pleasing the Big Pharma Mafia.

And, of course, the standard operational procedure response to flipped-out angry Republicans seems to be "who has the kneepads"? He's spent half his first year in office trying to assuage their butthurt feelings when the American people made it rather clear we think they deserve a bit of butthurt.

A few left-wing agendas have gotten passed, notably the recent elevating of gay-bashing to the hate-crimes status, and stuff like that-- while it is important, and I don't dismiss the necessity of that, part of me thinks a lot of this is also a string of achievemnts to point to so that people forget about the pending health care loss. (It will be a loss because any compromise that does away with public option is essentially another round of giving Business whatever they want).

But then, modern American Progressives don't seem to have a lot of courage for real political confrontation. That's whay centrists, moderate, and more extreme rightists can get elected, but an extreme leftist is shut out.

[open_sketchbook]

A lot of shit has been attributed to Obama that he never said or implied. A look at his leadership style shows that he's not going to make huge sweeping changes, which is smart for him because President's can't do that anymore. The number of restrictions that he has to fight against to change existing acts make it nearly impossible to just get rid of them anyway, from a legal and political point of view.

You people are really exaggerating here. Obama came into office dealing with the fallout of eight years of one of the worst governments the United States has ever had. He popped into the middle of huge number of massive debates, his political opponents think he's the Anti-Christ, a terrorist and a communist, and he's been smeared constantly since entering office not just by the right but by a left disappointed that he's not doing everything at once. Fact of the matter is, political change relies on political pressure; in every administration that overlooked great change the same social pressure from the public forced the hand of the government. Getting your guy in office is the beginning, not the end. Democrats, you can't just sit back and go "My work here is done." Do that write to your congressman activism shit. Organize protests, get on the street, push the government in the direction you want it to go. Don't let the Right provide all the talking points like they are now.

[Coyote]

It is also worth remembering that for a long time, George W. Bush was lambasted by a lot of Conservatives for not being conservative enough and doing things like abolishing taxes in general and ending abortion.

[Anguirus]

I admit to feeling a bit put out by Obama's lack of angelic liberal perfection, but I'm not terribly surprised. I said from the start that the right-wingers would regret their crowing about Bush's increased executive power the minute an executive they didn't like inherited all that power. I will continue to support the repeal of the Patriot Act but that doesn't stop me from a grim laugh at the irony.

[Eleas]

When are people going to remember that Obama is a Chicago politician? He's massively better than Bush, but really, that could mean almost anything. Obama isn't a panacea; at best he's a first step in the right direction for the US. As open_sketchbook says, this is the moment when change can actually start, and it has to come from the constituents themselves. That's a long, hard road, given how much has already been lost.

And it's really a pity how some seem to think it sufficient if Obama would only take care of the problem for them.

[Qwerty 42]

We'll see how I feel in two and a half years, but right now I'm considering voting Feingold in the Democratic primary.

[ray245]

We'll see how I feel in two and a half years, but right now I'm considering voting Feingold in the Democratic primary.

What would that achieve? Make it easier for Republicans to win the elections?

[Qwerty 42]

We'll see how I feel in two and a half years, but right now I'm considering voting Feingold in the Democratic primary.

What would that achieve? Make it easier for Republicans to win the elections?

In the primary? It wouldn't be anything but a statement.

[Rahvin]

A lot of shit has been attributed to Obama that he never said or implied.

And people tend to think he's far more liberal than he actually is. He's a moderate. He's never been anything else. Actual liberals don't make it out of the primaries around here. The only excuse I can think of for actually believing Obama was a liberal is when comparing him to Bush. Or buying into Fox Noise's propaganda. I can only wish Obama was half as liberal and capable of change as the ultra-right-wing thinks he is.

A look at his leadership style shows that he's not going to make huge sweeping changes, which is smart for him because President's can't do that anymore. The number of restrictions that he has to fight against to change existing acts make it nearly impossible to just get rid of them anyway, from a legal and political point of view.

Which is disappointing, considering the current status of Congress. Honestly, he shouldn't be having any trouble at all - and let's be honest, with a large number of items, he could have enacted change by himself, and simply didn't. Again, that may be disappointing, but shouldn't in any way be surprising. He's a moderate, and "change" seems to mean "let's just not move quite so quickly to the right wing" rather than what we'd all hope for, something like "let's actually follow the laws of our country and work to enact real social justice while disengaging from the morally and politically bankrupt policies of the past."

You people are really exaggerating here. Obama came into office dealing with the fallout of eight years of one of the worst governments the United States has ever had.

Very true - but he came with a large Congressional power swing in his direction, as well. There's lot to slog through in fixing the past 8 years of drek, but the issue is not one of ability - it's one of desire. Again, Obama is a moderate. For all his talk of "change" during the campaign, he's taken action (or even expressed an intent) to change very few of the most egregious policies of the Bush Failministration.

He popped into the middle of huge number of massive debates, his political opponents think he's the Anti-Christ,

How is this different for any Democratic President?

[quote a terrorist and a communist,[/quote]

I'll grant you, the "terrorist" one is relatively new. But Clinton was vilified by the rightwing during his term as well. Fundies think everyone in a position of power who doesn't share their exact values and faith is the Antichrist.

and he's been smeared constantly since entering office not just by the right but by a left disappointed that he's not doing everything at once.

No. The Left is upset because he is actively retaining several abhorrent policies. He promised to close Gitmo...but he's still not applying Constitutional rights to the inmates. He's taken "action" there, but it's not the action the Left wanted. It has nothing to do with political ability - it has to do with desire. He's a moderate. Of course the actual left is pissed. And he'll continue to bleed support from the left for every year that we distance ourselves from Bush - the liberal-by-comparison factor continues to weaken every time he supports a Bush policy or tacitly does so by not even so much as releasing a statement of intent to change or encourage Congress to change the laws and policies pissing the Left off.

Fact of the matter is, political change relies on political pressure; in every administration that overlooked great change the same social pressure from the public forced the hand of the government. Getting your guy in office is the beginning, not the end.

This is primarily becasue there is no such thing as "our guy" greater than 90% of the time in politics.

Democrats, you can't just sit back and go "My work here is done." Do that write to your congressman activism shit. Organize protests, get on the street, push the government in the direction you want it to go. Don't let the Right provide all the talking points like they are now.

Well, we are. The Left (such as it is in teh US) hasn't been sitting idly and waiting for Obama to do all the work. You said yourself a paragraph ago that Obama faces severe criticism from the Left. We've had protests. We continue to shout and scream and make noise about the Iraq/Afghan wars, Gitmo, healthcare, and other concerns. Many of us do write to our Congress-critters, for all the good it does.

The problem is simply that Obama isn't "our guy." He never was. He's just a lot fucking better than their guy, which unfortunately sets the bar very low.

[Qwerty 42]

If it weren't for how disastrous the Republican party looks right now, I'd consider voting that way in 2012.

Yes because it's not like they're the ones who created the damned thing in the first place or anyth... oh wait.

By "disastrous," I meant even worse. That's my fault, my vocabulary's been escaping me lately.

[darthdavid]

If it weren't for how disastrous the Republican party looks right now, I'd consider voting that way in 2012.

Yes because it's not like they're the ones who created the damned thing in the first place or anyth... oh wait.

By "disastrous," I meant even worse. That's my fault, my vocabulary's been escaping me lately.

Yeah, in that event they are pretty fucking disastrous . Sorry for jumping down your throat .

[Qwerty 42]

Yeah, in that event they are pretty fucking disastrous . Sorry for jumping down your throat .

Don't sweat it; like I said, my fault, poor choice of word.