Democrats in the U.S. Senate have finally flexed some muscle in mounting a successful campaign to prevent approval of a four-year extension on expiring provisions of the "Uniting and Strengthening America Act by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001," better known as the PATRIOT Act.
While Republicans have a majority in the Senate, the rules of that body require 60 votes (down from 67 two decades ago) to cut off a threatened filibuster on an issue – and few issues have been more contentious than reauthorizing the 16 sunseting provisions of the PATRIOT Act.
The debate proceeded hot and heavy today, with several senators referring to a report in today's New York Times which revealed for the first time that President Bush had signed an executive order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to conduct warrantless eavesdropping on the phone calls and e-mails of perhaps thousands of Americans and foreign nationals living within the United States.
It's an order that may be a federal felony, though the Times described it as merely "a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices," though later, it did report that "Some officials familiar with it say they consider warrantless eavesdropping inside the United States to be unlawful and possibly unconstitutional, amounting to an improper search."
It is unlikely, however, that the U.S. House, having ignored dozens of previous illegal acts by the administration, will begin impeachment proceedings in response to this revelation.
(Particularly troubling is the paragraph in the Times article which reads, "The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.")
"I don't want to hear again from the attorney general or anyone on this floor that this government has shown it can be trusted to use the power we give it with restraint and care," said Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.), the only senator to vote against enacting the PATRIOT Act in 2001.
In any case, while two Democrats – Tim Johnson (S.D.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.) – voted with the majority of Republicans who were attempting to preempt a threatened filibuster, four Republicans – Chuck Hagel (Neb.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), John Sununu (N.H.) and Larry Craig (Idaho) – voted against cloture, and were later joined by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.) in what one news report described as "a parliamentary move to allow him to seek a new vote later."
"Those that would give up essential liberties in pursuit in a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security," said Sununu, quoting the ever-more-prescient words of Benjamin Franklin.
"Mr. President, it is time to have checks and balances in this country," declared Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), the Judiciary Committee's top Democrat, who has been fighting for just a three-month extension so that the Senate could consider the issues raised by the reauthorization more fully. "We are more American for doing that."
On the other hand, Sen. John Kyl (R-Az.), a neo-conservative who was a featured speaker at the 2004 Conservative Political Action Conference, echoed the arguments of Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner III, who had urged the House of Representatives to pass its reauthorization bill to prevent further terrorist attacks on the U.S.
Without a reauthorization vote, the 16 sections of the Act will expire on Dec. 31. If that happens, Newsday reported that Republicans had said that they will place the blame on Democrats in next year's midterm elections. "In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without these vital tools for a single moment," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "The time for Democrats to stop standing in the way has come."
Mr. McClellan neglected to mention whether the U.S. Constitution was "standing in the way" as well.
