Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditAs the U.S. Senate moved Thursday to reauthorize the Patriot Act in a form that fails to address essential concerns about the protection of civil liberties, Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, the chamber's most ardent critic of reauthorization along the lines demanded by the Bush administration, admitted temporary defeat. But, in final remarks to his colleagues on the eve of the vote, Feingold declared, "This fight is not over Mr. President. The vote today will not assuage the deep and legitimate concerns that the public has about the Patriot Act. I am convinced that in the end, the government will respond to the people, as it should. We will defeat the terrorists, and we will preserve the freedom and liberty that make this the greatest country on the face of the earth."
Here is the text of the speech Feingold -- the only senator to oppose the initial version of the Patriot Act in 2001 and one of the few to consistently oppose it throughout the reauthorization process -- prepared for delivery to the Senate:
Mr. President, in a few minutes, the Senate will conclude a process that began over a year ago by reauthorizing the Patriot Act. I will have a few closing remarks but first I want to take this opportunity to thank the extraordinary staff who have worked on this bill for so long. These men and women, on both sides of the aisle, have worked extremely hard and they deserve to be recognized. I ask unanimous consent that a list of their names be printed in the Record after my remarks.
Mr. President, beginning in November when we first saw a draft of the conference report, I have spoken at length about the substance of this bill. I hoped that when we started the task of reauthorizing the Patriot Act at the beginning of last year, the end product would be something that the whole Senate could support. We had a real chance to pass a bill that would both reauthorize the tools to prevent terrorism and fix the provisions that threaten the rights and freedoms of innocent Americans. This conference report, even as amended by the bill incorporating the White House deal that we passed yesterday, falls well short of that goal. I will vote no.
Protecting the country from terrorism while also protecting our rights is a challenge for every one of us, particularly in the current political climate, and it is a challenge we all take seriously. I know that many Senators who will vote for this reauthorization bill in a few minutes would have preferred to enact the bill we passed without a single objection in July of last year. I appreciate that so many of my colleagues came to recognize the need to take the opportunity presented by the sunset provisions included in the original Patriot Act to make changes that would better protect civil liberties than did the law we enacted in haste in October 2001.
Nevertheless, I am deeply disappointed that we have largely wasted this opportunity to fix the obvious problems with the Patriot Act.
The reason I spent so much time in the past few days talking about how the public views the Patriot Act was to make it clear that this fight was not about one Senator arguing the details of the law. This fight was about trying to restore the public's trust in our government. That trust has been severely shaken as the public learned more about the Patriot Act, which was passed with so little debate in 2001, and as the administration resisted congressional oversight efforts and repeatedly politicized the reauthorization process. The revelations about secret warrantless surveillance late last year only confirmed the suspicions of many in our country that the government is willing to trample the rule of law and constitutional guarantees in the fight against terrorism.
The negative reaction to the Patriot Act has been overwhelming. Over 400 state and local government bodies passed resolutions pleading with Congress to change the law. Citizens have signed petitions, library associations and campus groups have organized to petition the Congress to act, numerous editorials have been written urging Congress not to reauthorize the law without adequate protections for civil liberties. These things occurred because Americans across the country recognize that the Patriot Act includes provisions that pose a threat to their privacy and liberty -- values that are at the very core of what this country represents, of who we are as a people.
In 2001, we were viciously attacked by terrorists who care nothing for American freedoms and American values. And we as a people came together to fight back, and we are prepared to make great sacrifices to defeat those who would destroy us. But what we will not do, what we cannot do, is destroy our own freedoms in the process.
Without freedom, we are not America. If we don't preserve our liberties, we cannot win this war, no matter how many terrorists we capture or kill.
That is why the several Senators who have said at one time or another during this debate things like, "Civil liberties do not mean much when you are dead" are wrong about America at the most basic level. They do not understand what this country is all about. Theirs is a vision that the founders of this nation, who risked everything for freedom, would categorically reject. And so do the American people.
Americans want to defeat terrorism, and they want the basic character of this country to survive and prosper. They want to empower the government to protect the nation from terrorists, and they want protections against government overreaching and overreacting. They know it might not be easy, but they expect the Congress to figure out how to do it. They don't want defeatism on either score. They want both security and liberty, and unless we give them both – and we can, if we try – we have failed.
This fight is not over Mr. President. The vote today will not assuage the deep and legitimate concerns that the public has about the Patriot Act. I am convinced that in the end, the government will respond to the people, as it should. We will defeat the terrorists, and we will preserve the freedom and liberty that make this the greatest country on the face of the earth.
I yield the floor.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Isn't it a shame that ....the term "Feingold Filibuster" has now become a running joke in Washington?
Posted by Mask at 03/02/2006 @ 3:23pm
I swear! Mask has some sort of Feingold Alarm that alerts him to a new posting on this site.
But Mask is right. Better to be thought well of by a bunch of monkeys than to stick to one's principles.
But are you really that much in touch with Washington, Mask? Are you hearing this joke at the happy hours and cocktail parties you attend in our nation's capital? Or are Cokie and other good moderates whispering in your ear to "Tut-tut" the strange little man from Wisconsin?
How do you define success in this current political climate, Mask? If you can't beat 'em, join 'em?
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 03/02/2006 @ 3:30pm
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 03/02/2006 @ 3:30pm | ignore this person
No....how about cut out the "Mr Smith/Jimmy Stewart going hoarse on the Senate floor" dog & pony show, Sen. Feingold....when you were MIGHTY obliging to Chief Justice John Roberts?
Posted by Mask at 03/02/2006 @ 3:33pm
"Senate overwhelmingly votes to renew Patriot Act - More soon"
from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 03/02/2006 @ 3:35pm
Russ Feingold for President.
Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/02/2006 @ 3:39pm
Seriously though, Feingold raises an important issue: where should we draw the line between, on the one hand, the legitimate concern over the terrorist threat, and on the other, the legitimate concern over preserving our precious civil rights and liberties that we all hold so dear? These concerns are to a significant extent inherently in conflict. More power to the govt means less civil liberties/less privacy, etc, and more civil liberties means less ability to fight terrorism. So it comes down to a question about WHERE the line is drawn. I agree that in light of the terrorist threat, the line had to be moved a bit in the direction of security, and hence, away from civil liberties. But not THAT much. I would almost rather die than give up our freedom.
To quote Patrick Henry: "Give me liberty, or give me death!"
Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/02/2006 @ 3:47pm
Feingold is simply raising legitimate concerns about the possibility that we may be drawing the line TOO far in the security direction, and therefore, are threatening civil liberties.
This is a perfectly reasonable concern. We need this national debate. WHERE should the line be drawn? Does the Patriot Act go too far?
Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/02/2006 @ 3:49pm
Ahh, the search for the perfect politician. There's your dog and pony show, Mask. Did Murtha lose all credibility when he finally spoke out...about something, anything? How many times had he carried the water for Republican warmongers?
Feingold ain't perfect, ain't noble, and probably ain't going to heaven. But when he gets things right--and he does so with great frequency in comparison to his colleagues, your first response is to remind us that he has failed in other circumstances. If that is what a conversation about a politician with you comes down to, then there is precious little to say about anyone in politics.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 03/02/2006 @ 3:54pm
Another defeat for the progresssives...
Posted by woodyee at 03/02/2006 @ 4:02pm
Posted by Hman23 at 03/02/2006 @ 4:06pm
Mask:
You always hammer Feingold re: Roberts, but opposing legislation is much different from a decision to use or not use a filibuster, no?
Posted by Hman23 at 03/02/2006 @ 4:08pm
HMAN and TJ
Why did he oppose the Patriot Act....AND filibuster Alito...and yet glad-hand and vote for TWICE for John Roberts?
"Roberts was obviously too qualified to filibuster"?....Oh, yeah. Nobody said much about Alito being "under-qualified", they took him on (as Russ did) for his VIEWS. Yet, "The Nation" (including Mr Nichols I believe) said that John Roberts was JUST AS MUCH an extremist as Alito.
Ol' Russ playing this out perfectly....let's in Roberts, even votes FOR him....which provides him political cover (can't be called "totally partisan") for an Alito filibuster (one he KNEW would go nowhere...think he didn't talk to Harry Reid?)....and then to "redeem" himself on is Roberts vote, he revives his Patriot Act bona fides.
"Perfect candidate" TJ....no....I NEVER look for one of them. Nor do I buy into the "knight in shining armor" theory of politicians either. If Feingold had been CONSISTANT, I'd have little to criticize him about.
Posted by Mask at 03/02/2006 @ 4:20pm
MASK:
I don't know what Nichols thought, but I think you are wrong on Roberts v. Alito. Alito had a paper trail that Roberts did not have, and there was more hard facts to fuel the opposition; my sense was that more on the Left had bigger issues with Alito. I for one, did not support any filibuster on Roberts, and conceded on at least one post here that I could not find a strong reason to even VOTE against him. Alito though . . .
Posted by Hman23 at 03/02/2006 @ 4:27pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/02/2006 @ 4:27pm | ignore this person
If Roberts had no "paper trail" and "no reason to vote against him"....then what was I reading about him last summmer here on "The Nation"?
"No reason to fight this one...wait until the next one"?
Posted by Mask at 03/02/2006 @ 4:36pm
Here's my thing as far as "consistency" is concerned. You shoot politicians down when they aren't willing to bend toward political realities, i.e. you seem to have little respect for those who fight against all odds. But you also shoot down politicians when they DO cave into political realities. Roberts received 22 "nay" votes; Alito received 42. As a Democrat, Feingold went out on a limb on neither of his votes on these nominees. What a wuss.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 03/02/2006 @ 4:58pm
Well, I can't speak for all Nation writers, but I know that many of the posters here were much more lukewarm on filabuster for Roberts as compared to Alito . . . but maybe I am wrong.
I certainly was not beating the filabuster drum for Roberts, and I remember there were plenty of others who actually thought with Roberts, Bush should get his choice. If I, and others thought that way, couldn't Feingold have as well?
Posted by Hman23 at 03/02/2006 @ 4:58pm
The voters against the renewal of the Patriot Act were Jim Jeffords, Russ Feingold, Robert Byrd, Daniel Akaka, Jeff Bingaman, Tom Harkin, Patrick Leahy, Carl Levin, Patty Murray and Ron Wyden. A truly radical crowd if ever I's seen one. Yes, Feingold is certainly in rough company here if he is rejecting the sage views of a Kennedy or Clinton in favor of a wacko like Ron Wyden or Patty Murray. What's next: teaming up with a Republican to tackle campaign finance reform?
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 03/02/2006 @ 6:36pm
God bless Robert Byrd, one of the most eloquent voices of opposition to the Bush Administration, particularly on the war.
Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/02/2006 @ 8:26pm
Isn't it a shame that ....the term "Feingold Filibuster" has now become a running joke in Washington?
Posted by MASK 03/02/2006 @ 3:23pm
Yea, having any sort of actual opinion sucks, huh?
You remind me of Nader, who won't buy a car, lest it be construed as an endorsement. Do you have an opinion, on substance, rather than strategy?
The shame is the "mask cynicism" is becoming a...nevermind.
Are you a political analyst? If not I am sorry, because you'd be a good one. But, at the end of your long day strategizing where would the man behind the mask, actually be on any of these issues?
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 03/02/2006 @ 10:38pm
Preventing terrorist attacks here in the U.S. is not an abstract, philosophical debate. Al Qaeda first tried to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993, and Clinton did nothing his entire 8 years to weaken Bin Laden or Al Qaeda.
If Sen. Feingold can present a better version of the Patriot Act, well then let's hear it. I would like to hear specifics from him, not grandstanding.
Posted by Zeddmen at 03/02/2006 @ 10:38pm
Another defeat for the progresssives...
Posted by WOODYEE 03/02/2006 @ 4:02pm
...And wingnuts, who are too stupid to see that yet. It's your liberties too.
Not my country right or wrong, even. But my party, right or wrong. How twisted. What a powerful cult, bushco is.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 03/02/2006 @ 10:41pm
"If Sen. Feingold can present a better version of the Patriot Act, well then let's hear it."
Posted by ZEDDMEN 03/02/2006 @ 10:38pm
Maybe you could find it in "the bill we passed without a single objection in July of last year."
Or maybe in the writings, over the last 5 YEARS, of "Over 400 state and local government bodies passed resolutions pleading with Congress to change the law. Citizens have signed petitions, library associations and campus groups have organized to petition the Congress to act, numerous editorials have been written urging Congress not to reauthorize the law without adequate protections for civil liberties."
Or something like that.
Do you guys read before you post?
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 03/02/2006 @ 10:47pm
Robots can't read Eric.
Posted by Hman23 at 03/02/2006 @ 11:19pm
What exactly were the differences between S.1389 which Feingold supported and H.R.3199?
Posted by DRG9 at 03/02/2006 @ 11:50pm
The "pwogwessive" dems who voted for this piece of crud remind me of those weasely little pundit-wannabes like Alterman who piss all over anyone who does anything on principle.
Posted by AlanSmithee at 03/03/2006 @ 3:24pm
Clinton did nothing his entire 8 years to weaken Bin Laden or Al Qaeda.
That is absurd.
Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/03/2006 @ 6:19pm
Posted by ALANSMITHEE 03/03/2006 @ 3:24pm
So, by that definition, is mask a "pwogwessive"?
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 03/03/2006 @ 6:25pm
DRG9
" On July 29 the Senate passed S. 1389 to reauthorize the USA PATRIOT Act by unanimous consent. When compared to the House reauthorization bill (H.R. 3199), which passed on July 21, the Senate bill creates stronger criteria for using Section 215 to obtain a FISA warrant to search business records. Furthermore, S. 1389 puts a four-year sunset on Section 215, whereas H.R. 3199 extends the sunset for ten years. Next a conference committee will reconcile the House and Senate bills and create a final piece of legislation on which Congress will vote after it reconvenes on September 6."
http://www.bordc.org/newsletter/bordc-act-alert56.php
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 03/03/2006 @ 6:38pm
If Sen. Feingold can present a better version of the Patriot Act, well then let's hear it. I would like to hear specifics from him, not grandstanding. Posted by ZEDDMEN 03/02/2006 @ 10:38pm | ignore this person
A classic reactionary. You can read the specifics – the original act, the conference reports – just as anyone else can. I will help you with a starting reference point: look up H.R. 3199. I, for one, don't feel inclined to do your homework for you. If you would practice active citizenship by becoming informed rather than simply reacting to something you are obviously not informed about, but speculate that it must be good because it was opposed by someone who is not of your partisan persuasion, you might have something to say that would be worth reading.
BTW – If you do choose to become informed about the Patriot Act, then rethink your partisan reactions and remember the parable of the boy who cut off his nose to spite his face.
Posted by seattlescribe at 03/04/2006 @ 01:19am