Drop the rules change for 2/3's majority without amendment, resubmit and pass.
A grateful President is never a bad thing On Feb 10, 10:32 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote: > House Refuses to Renew Patriot Act ProvisionsbyThe Freemanon Wednesday, > February 9, 2011 at 8:32am > “A measure extending portions of the Patriot Act fell seven votes short in > the House as 26 Republicans joined Democrats in voting it down.” (UPI)A blow > on behalf of civil liberties.How Washington Protects Your Privacy and > LibertyJames Bovard > January/February 2011 • Volume: 61 • Issue: 1 • > Preserving trust in government is the highest goodat least for politicians. > To create that trust, government continually spawns façades to make people > believe their rights are safe. Few things better illustrate this charade than > the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. > In 2004, three years after the Patriot Act was enacted, politicians started > to worry about the rising number of Americans grumbling about government > intrusions. The 9/11 Commission proposed creating “a board within the > executive branch to oversee adherence to the guidelines we recommend and the > commitment the government makes to defend our civil liberties.” Creating > another office within the executive branch to report on executive branch > activities was unlikely to produce anything more than extra jobs for > Washington hangers-on. The White House edited the 9/11 commission’s report > before it was publicly released, so the Bush team had no trouble with this > toothless-tiger palliative. > In December 2004, acting on the commission’s recommendation, Congress > mandated the creation of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. The > same law that created the oversight board also made it easier for the FBI to > get eavesdropping warrants on Americans, created a new standard to make it > easier to prosecute citizens who donate to foreign charities of which the > U.S. government disapproves, and provided a new layer of secrecy for federal > agencies. > Some congressmen hailed the board as the start of a brave new era. Things > would be different since there was a new sheriff in Washington -- or at least > that was what people were supposed to think. The civil liberties developments > in the years after the board was created offer profound lessons into how the > government works. > It would have been difficult to design a better rubber stamp than the Privacy > and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. It had no subpoena power, so it was > effectively obliged to accept unsubstantiated assertions from the agencies > violating privacy and liberty. The president had the right to appoint board > members and could fire them any time. Bush did not appoint any experts on > civil liberties; instead, the board was stacked with Republicans who formerly > held government positions as enforcement zealots. And the first appointments > did not occur until seven months after the law passed. The American Bar > Association noted that Bush’s nominations were timed “as part of the > administration’s push to encourage Congress to reauthorize provisions of the > USA Patriot Act that expire within the next few months.” The oversight board > supposedly guaranteed that Patriot Act powers would not be abused. > Six months after Bush stacked the board, the biggest civil liberties expose > of recent decades exploded on the front page of theNew York Times. The prior > year, when he was running for reelection, Bush assured Americans that no > wiretaps were occurring without federal court authorization. But > theTimesrevealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) had conducted > warrantless wiretaps on thousands of Americans based on flimsy pretexts. > TheTimes’James Risen reported that Bush’s “secret presidential order has > given the NSA the freedom to peruse . . . the email of millions of > Americans.” The NSA’s program was quickly christened the “J. Edgar Hoover > Memorial Vacuum Cleaner.” > In the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights the Founding Fathers decreed > that government searches must be based on probable cause and approved by a > neutral magistrate. The Bush wiretapping program was based solely on the > president’s edict. Shift supervisors at the National Security Agency decided > which Americans got wiretapped. But a GS-13 civil servant is not > constitutionally on par with a federal judge.An Ineffective RageDid the > existence of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board change how the > wiretapping scandal played out? Not a whit. Bush seized on theTimesexposé to > portray himself as heroically rising above the statute book to protect the > American people. A month later, Republican members of Congress gave Bush a > standing ovation when he bragged about his “terrorist surveillance program” > in his State of the Union address. There was more enthusiasm in Congress for > prosecutingNew York Timeseditors and reporters for treason than for > prosecuting NSA officials for violating federal law. > Supporters of civil liberties rallied a few months later to try to slow the > bandwagon to renew the Patriot Act. One major concern was the provision in > the original Patriot Act that made it far easier for the FBI to use National > Security Letters (NSLs) to compel private citizens, businesses, nonprofits, > and other entities to surrender information on demand. NSLs empower the FBI > to seize records that reveal “where a person makes and spends money, with > whom he lives and lived before, how much he gambles, what he buys online, > what he pawns and borrows, where he travels, how he invests, what he searches > for and reads on the Web, and who telephones or e-mails him at home and at > work,” theWashington Postnoted. The FBI was issuing more than 50,000 NSLs per > year. > While Bush pressured Congress to renew the Patriot Act in 2005, Attorney > General Alberto Gonzales announced, “The track record established over the > past three years has demonstrated the effectiveness of the safeguards of > civil liberties put in place when the act was passed. There has not been one > verified case of civil liberties abuse.” In reality the feds had already > discovered hundreds of criminal abuses of Patriot Act powers involving FBI > agents and NSLs. But the abuses were kept under wraps until after Congress > renewed the Patriot Act. > A bipartisan agreement to renew the Patriot Act was finally reached, giving > the White House almost everything it wanted. As part of the deal Bush > administration officials agreed to provide Congress far more details on how > Patriot Act powers were being used. The Justice Department would be obliged > to disclose to Congress how many Americans were having their privacy violated > by NSLs. > However, Bush reneged in a “signing statement” quietly released after a > heavily hyped White House bill-signing ceremony. He decreed that he was > entitled to deny Congress any information that would “impair foreign > relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or > the performance of the executive’s constitutional duties.” Bush announced > that he would interpret the law “in a manner consistent with the president’s > constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to > withhold information.” > In other words, any provision of the law that required disclosure would be > presumptively null and void. The crux of the Bush administration’s “unitary > executive” doctrine was that all power rests in the president and that > “checks and balances” are archaic. > The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board had no complaint about this > charade. Instead, the members belatedly and heartily endorsed the NSA’s > warrantless wiretaps on Americans’ phone calls and emails. > In 2007, before the Board could issue its first annual report, White House > staffers massively rewrote and censored a draft version. Lanny Davis, the > sole Democratic member of the board, resigned, later protesting that “the > board was logically viewed . . . as the functional equivalent of White House > staff.”Toothless WatchdogBut the mere existence of the board allowed members > of Congress to pirouette as constitutional saviors. When the House passed > legislation later in 2007 moving the board out of the White House and > requiring Senate confirmation of its members, Rep. Carolyn Maloney > proclaimed, “The American people must have trust in their government to > support its tactics against terrorism, and a strong Civil Liberties Board is > vital to upholding that public trust.” But the restructured board, like the > original, was better designed to alleviate public fears than to restrain > federal power. The “reformed” Board was given little or no power to acquire > information that federal agencies chose not to give. And it is difficult to > understand how requiring Senate confirmation of Board members was a silver > bullet, since the Senate had given approval, retroactive or otherwise, to the > Bush administration’s most controversial abuses. > The same season that Congress passed the civil liberties board reform > proposal it also enacted a law requiring the Homeland Security Department’s > chief privacy officer to “to report each year about Homeland Security > activities that affect privacy,” theNew York Timesreported. The law required > that “reports be submitted directly to Congress ‘without any prior comment or > amendment’ by superiors at the department or the White House.” Congress > passed this law because of an earlier controversy about White House > censorship of the Homeland Security Department’s report on privacy violations. > Five months after the law passed, Bush covertly issued a legal opinion > effectively declaring that provision null and void. Deputy assistant attorney > general Steven Bradbury declared that “such interference [by Congress] is > impermissible.” Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on > the Senate Judiciary Committee, denounced Bush’s action as “unconstitutional” > and “a dictatorial, after-the-fact pronouncement by him in line with a lot of > other cherry-picking he’s done on the signing statements.” But Bush’s action > was largely ignored by the media. And his Civil Liberties Board certainly did > not even whimper. > When Bush lagged in appointing members to the restructured board, Sen. Joe > Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, urged him in > 2008 to move quickly “to preserve the public’s faith in our promise to > protect their privacy and civil liberties as we work to protect the country > against terrorism.” Lieberman wanted to preserve “the public’s faith” at the > same time he championed “enhanced interrogation” methods and retroactive > immunity for any company or person who violated Americans’ rights in the name > of antiterrorism. (The Senate did not confirm any of Bush’s belated > nominations.)Change You Can Forget AboutDuring his presidential campaign > Barack Obama vigorously criticized Bush’s civil liberties abuses. Many of his > supporters expected that, if elected, Obama would radically change federal > policies regarding American liberty. > As of this past October, Obama had made no appointments to the oversight > board. Rep. Bennie Thompson, then chairman of the House Homeland Security > Committee, and Rep. Jane Harman, then chairman of that panel’s subcommittee > on intelligence, wrote Obama early last year urging him to speedily make > appointments because “we believe that the Board will give an anxious public > confidence that appropriate rights are respected.” Harman is best known as > the sponsor of the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention > Act, which could have spurred massive crackdowns on libertarians, > constitutionalists, and others with nonmainstream ideas. > Many newspaper editorials have also complained about Obama’s failure to stock > the oversight board. But this is perhaps the most honest action the Obama > administration has taken regarding civil liberties. In area after area Obama > has rubber-stamped Bush-era abuses and signaled that there would be no > investigation or prosecution of official wrongdoers from the previous > administration. Obama is also embracing Bush-style State-secrecy doctrines > that prohibit disclosure of the rationale for U.S. government-planned > assassinations of Americans. > The oversight board is far more likely to induce complacency than to protect > liberty. Since 9/11, trampling the Constitution is a no-fault offense. In > Washington nowadays, only “extremists” believe that federal officials should > be jailed for violating citizens’ privacy. > For every member of Congress such as Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), who vigorously > and consistently opposes federal abuses, there are vanloads of congressmen > cheering federal agents’ trampling the statute book in the name of public > safety. The founders intended Congress to be a vigorous check on the abuses > of the executive branch. However, few members of Congress have the gumption > to pursue official lawbreakers or to fight to expose agencies’ crime sprees. > In the 1970s, senators like Sam Ervin (D-N.C.) and Frank Church (D-Id.) > spearheaded probes into executive-branch abuses, revolutionizing how > Americans thought about the president, the CIA, and the FBI. Ervin and Church > succeeded in part because of sheer willpower. But there is little or no such > courage in Washington nowadays. > Washington vastly prefers the appearance of checks and balances to the > reality of government under law. At a time when federal officials who violate > Americans’ rights have nothing to fear from Uncle Sam, the existence of the > oversight board is a cruel taunt to private citizens. > Perhaps the best epithet for the feds’ civil liberties record is the saying > of Lily Tomlin: “No matter how cynical you become, it’s never enough to keep > up.” “I’m from the government, and I’m here to safeguard your privacy” is the > post-9/11 version of the old joke. But American liberty cannot afford any > more sham protections. Abolishing the oversight board would be the most > honest step Washington has taken on civil liberties in this > century.http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/how-washington-protects-your-privacy-and-liberty/ -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
