Centerfield

From what I understand, various provisions within the Patriot Act were given a sunset clause, which all soon expire. I don't believe the entire act expires on January 1, 2006, just those specific provisions. Although the provisions in question are obviously the controversial ones, overall the Patriot Act is still law and still has a significant impact. Nobody, or at least nobody of significance, is outright against the Patriot Act, but only against certain parts of it.

I am not sure what the reason to oppose temporarily extending the provisions in question is, other than political manuevering. It would seem that by having a straight up or down vote on renewal, the administration would be able to label those who voted against the act as obstructionist. Seem familiar? If they were to temporarily renew it, they lose their ability to frame the issue.

As far as making changes later, of course that is a possiblity, but a very small one. Any law can be changed, amended, etc. at anytime but it is of course easier to do so if their is a timeline forced by a sunset clause, temporary renewal, etc. By voting for the conference bill, they would literally have to start over and write a new bill in order make changes, where as under temporary renewal specific provisions of the act would be reconsidered in the future without having to go through the entire legislative process.

I support the Patriot Act, and have long suspected that it isn't the law in and of itself that is the problem, but rather how this administration interprets and implements it. Personally, I think if there was ever anything wrong with the Patriot Act it was that it was written and passed hastily, for good reason, immediately after September 11th, hence the sunset clauses. I personally see no problem with temporarily renewing the Act and continuing the debate on its weaknesses and overall effectiveness, and in fact think that would be wise public policy.

Here is Congressman Sensenbrenner's highlights from the House/Senate Conference Report. Slanted, but useful. Pay attention to the bullet points on page two. Specifically, the second bullet that says the conference report makes permanent 14 of 16 provisions within the act.

Again, the question that is unanswered as far as I am concerned is: Why make them permanent? Why not revisit them in one year, two years, five years, etc.? They weren't made permanent initially, why make them permanent now?

There's a lot of posturing going on, as always.

The parts up for renewal are a small part of the overall Act, but include some of the most controversial bits. A list is here. It's well worth a read. Note in particular how some of those provisions relate directly to the current surveillance flap--and note the timing of the NYT story. Pure coincidence, I'm sure! (The NYT piece was originally scheduled to run the month before the Presidential election last year. Once again coincidence, I'm sure!) (/snarkycynicism)

The Dems tried to push through a four-year extension bill. The GOP wanted to make portions permanent, and put expiration dates on some of the more controversial parts. Specifically, "authorization for roving wiretaps, which allow investigators to monitor multiple devices to keep a target from evading detection by switching phones or computers; and secret warrants for books, records and other items from businesses, hospitals and organizations such as libraries." (CNN)

The Dems then filibustered, and the filibuster held. They offered a short-term extension to get the bill off the line-up for the election runups next year. The GOP refused, and IMHO they woulda been crazy/stupid to throw away the tool. They will keep bringing it back up in order to force Dems onto the record as voting against the Act renewals, for electioneering purposes. Frist switched his vote at the last minute so that he can still bring the bill back up again. And again.

This is classic demogogic pre-election politickin', on both sides. If you have notions of a "noble" Congress, now is the time to watch the reality and lose your innocence. These are not extraordinary maneuvers. They are stock in trade.

Something to note: the parts of the act due to expire will still apply for the investigations and prosecutions begun under them, but will not be available for use in future investigations and prosecutions.

Just as I thought. It's all politics. I think you're right, Tully. If there's any nobility at all in our elected officials, it is in severely short supply, on either side.

Some of them exhibit it occasionally, but NOT on the floor towards the end of session.

And here's the kicker!

The Senate leadership has now compromised on a six-month extension. The Dems wanted three. Six months puts it right in the middle of the full primary swing.

No, the Dems aren't total idiots, but they're looking out for their seat counts. If they're opposed in primaries by "house revolts," they have another club in their arsenal for in-party challenges. They have a vote they can point at showing they're strong on national security. And another one saying they're against those nasty vicious horrible Patriot Act provisions.

While that's good "triangulation" for the individual Dem senators, it's lousy overall for the Dem party as a whole. It reinforces the "soft on security" meme and the indecisive image. The GOP will have the Act back up for vote in mid-summer so they can take the results back home to campaign with during the summer recess. And they'll keep twisting that knife all the way to November.

Both sides are gambling, but it's the Dems as a party who are betting against the odds.

I don't mind the extension. I have problems with making parts of this act permanent. I think a two to five year sunset is a good idea for all pieces like this. Once it becomes permanent, the idea of review or change becomes exponentially harder.

I am not thrilled with the parts of the Patriot Act; but it is a needed tool. I just think a sunset provision is a bit more protection from it being used for items that are not really within its scope.

I'd prefer a renewable sunset myself, on almost ALL laws.

That would be great, if for no other reason than keeping congress busy reviewing the crappy laws they already passed so they can't pass too many new crappy laws.

You're on to me, WHQ.

I'd prefer a renewable sunset myself, on almost ALL laws.

Ross Perot said this before people thought he was crazy... I thought he was right then, and you are right now.

Even a crazed squirrel finds a nut now and again!