The Obama administration is standing firm in its support of several George W. Bush-era Patriot Act powers in the face of sharp criticism from civil rights groups, liberal Democrats and a Dec. 31 deadline to extend key provisions of the bill. The Justice Department recently reiterated its request for Congress to extend with few changes key provisions of the Patriot Act: sections that allow roving wiretaps on multiple phones, seizing of business records and a never-used authority to spy on non-Americans suspected of being terrorists even though they have no connection to a recognized terrorist group.... At least six bills to reauthorize the act have been offered in the House and Senate, revealing Democratic divisions that must be overcome.[?] The administration appears to have convinced Leahy and his Senate colleagues on Judiciary, which passed a bill in early October that would renew the expiring powers for four years, with modest changes. The House Judiciary bill includes slightly stricter standards that the government must meet to win approval for a roving wiretap, access library or bookstore records and issue national security letters, demands for information without a court order.... Other than the letter to Leahy, so far the Justice Department has not publicly provided detailed reasons for keeping the Patriot Act provisions largely intact. In recent weeks, however, the administration has hailed its interception of an alleged domestic terrorism plot involving a legal U.S. resident from Afghanistan -- Najibullah Zazi, whom the government says is linked to al Qaeda -- as proof that the Patriot Act needs to be renewed. Disclosure of the 55-page written response from the Justice Department comes one week before Holder is set to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on general oversight issues.
The Justice Department recently reiterated its request for Congress to extend with few changes key provisions of the Patriot Act: sections that allow roving wiretaps on multiple phones, seizing of business records and a never-used authority to spy on non-Americans suspected of being terrorists even though they have no connection to a recognized terrorist group....
At least six bills to reauthorize the act have been offered in the House and Senate, revealing Democratic divisions that must be overcome.[?] The administration appears to have convinced Leahy and his Senate colleagues on Judiciary, which passed a bill in early October that would renew the expiring powers for four years, with modest changes. The House Judiciary bill includes slightly stricter standards that the government must meet to win approval for a roving wiretap, access library or bookstore records and issue national security letters, demands for information without a court order....
Other than the letter to Leahy, so far the Justice Department has not publicly provided detailed reasons for keeping the Patriot Act provisions largely intact. In recent weeks, however, the administration has hailed its interception of an alleged domestic terrorism plot involving a legal U.S. resident from Afghanistan -- Najibullah Zazi, whom the government says is linked to al Qaeda -- as proof that the Patriot Act needs to be renewed. Disclosure of the 55-page written response from the Justice Department comes one week before Holder is set to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on general oversight issues.
GQ Has Obama done anything to scale back the power of the executive, in your opinion? SH He inherited a presidency of unprecedented power, especially in the national security area, and he has shown no real compunction to surrender any of that power. Sure, he's said no torture, no black sites, no extraordinary renditions--but even on that, he dropped a footnote and said I'm not saying renditions are bad, just extraordinary renditions. These are quite surgical modifications. The bigger machine is still operating the way it was in the past. There was a hope that he would gradually begin this process of bringing things back to somewhat more balance. But that's really not happening. We see a president who is unwilling to give up any prerogative. To the contrary, I'm sure he feels that he's in a position to use that power for the good, so why should he give it up.
SH He inherited a presidency of unprecedented power, especially in the national security area, and he has shown no real compunction to surrender any of that power. Sure, he's said no torture, no black sites, no extraordinary renditions--but even on that, he dropped a footnote and said I'm not saying renditions are bad, just extraordinary renditions. These are quite surgical modifications. The bigger machine is still operating the way it was in the past. There was a hope that he would gradually begin this process of bringing things back to somewhat more balance. But that's really not happening. We see a president who is unwilling to give up any prerogative. To the contrary, I'm sure he feels that he's in a position to use that power for the good, so why should he give it up.
May be cliché, but 'Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.'
