Congressional Republicans Reach Deal on Patriot Act
According to ABC News, this is the "second time in less than a month that Republicans [have] claimed agreement on a new Patriot Act. "
One key controversial section extends authority for FBI use of "national security letters," which require businesses such as libraries, internet service providers, banks, hospitals or telephone companies to provide customer records on request -- no court order (warrant) required. Moreover, the customer cannot be told of the data release. "The Washington Post reported last month that the FBI now issues more than 30,000 national security letters a year, a hundred-fold increase over historic norms. The Justice Department disputed the report but has refused to provide its own tally."
According to the Boston Globe, additional provisions receiving a four-year extension include:
- Wiretaps on different telephones, following suspect behavior; this includes cellphones and computer
- Wiretaps for so-called ''lone-wolf" suspects (people who do not appear to be affiliated with "a terrorist group or a foreign power")
Six senators issued a joint statement opposing the compromise. One was Sen. Russell Feinghold (D-WI), the only senator to vote against the original Patriot Act: ''I will do everything I can, including a filibuster, to stop this Patriot Act conference report, which does not include adequate safeguards to protect our constitutional freedoms. This battle is not over."
The other five senators: Larry Craig (R-ID), Richard Durbin (D-IL) Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Ken Salazar (D-CO) and John Sununu (R-NH).
Technorati Profile
Technorati tags: Patriot Act, Politics
gada.be tags: Patriot Act , Politics

Comments
Good for Feingold. If there’s one bill that’s deserving of a filibuster, this is it.
The fact that the administration doesn’t want to get a court order when it seeks private information indicates to me that the law is being used for unjustified uses. Why are they afraid of having to show probable cause before they start mucking around in my personal affairs?
I am not against wiretaps or the obtaining of private records. I just think the authorities should have to explain themselves to a judge first.