September 16, 2009, - 12:10 pm

Guess Who’s Seeking An Extension of the Patriot Act

By Debbie Schlussel

Hmmm . .  . someone in the White House is seeking an extension of the USA Patriot Act.  You know, the same Patriot Act much vilified by the Democrats and the left–especially a certain Senator Barack Hussein Obama–ever since it was enacted.


But, wait.  Since Bush is no longer President, and a different guy has been in there for eight months,  who could possibly be seeking an extension of three key provision of the Patriot Act?

Why, it’s none other than the same Barack Obama who voted for the Patriot Act, but then claimed he  opposed the Patriot Act and wanted it repealed . . . until he became President (echoes of John Kerry).

The Obama administration supports extending three key provisions of the Patriot Act that are due to expire at the end of the year, the Justice Department told Congress in a letter made public Tuesday.

Lawmakers and civil rights groups had been pressing the Democratic administration to say whether it wants to preserve the post-Sept. 11 law’s authority to access business records, as well as monitor so-called “lone wolf” terrorists and conduct roving wiretaps.

The provision on business records was long criticized by rights groups as giving the government access to citizens’ library records, and a coalition of liberal and conservative groups complained that the Patriot Act gives the government too much authority to snoop into Americans’ private lives.

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama said he would take a close look at the law, based on his past expertise in constitutional law.

Life is tough when the shoe is on the other foot and  you head up a country that’s under attack, isn’t is.

What’s that I hear?  Outcries from the left that Barack Obama is a Nazi and the new Hitler because he wants to extend law enforcement’s ability to protect the country and properly investigate terrorists?  Nope, strangely silent on that front.  Ditto for the crickets chirping from the mouth of Senator Richard Durban.  No comparisons to the Nazi camps from him, this time.

Instead, we hear gushing and silver lining stretching from the ACLU:

Michelle Richardson of the American Civil Liberties Union called the administration’s position “a mixed bag,” and said that the group hopes the next version of the Patriot Act will have important safeguards on other issues . . . .

“We’re heartened they’re saying they’re willing to work with Congress,” Richardson said, adding that is “definitely a sea change from what we’ve seen in the past.”

A “sea change”?  How?

Like I said, shoe.  Other foot.   Other President.  Correct side of the aisle.  Hypocrites.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

8 Responses

I think we ought to be real careful here. He may want the extension for reasons other than National Security (like spying on domestic opponents).

I_AM_ME on September 16, 2009 at 12:42 pm

Obama never had the conservative right, has almost completely lost the middle, and is now loosing the left. And Jimmy Carter is smilling all the time because there is now someone worse than him in the White House.

Close one huh Jimmy.

Chris D on September 16, 2009 at 1:01 pm

I supported the Patriot Act only as a temporary measure that was to be closely monitored.

If still needed then so be it.

I have to say that I don’t feel deep down that this administration will be above board with this.

The left’s mastery of dirty tricks can sometimes be frightening

Sam Adams on September 16, 2009 at 2:28 pm

It would be great if they actually toughened and added some provisions to the Patriot Act. We should be able to racial profile Muslims. Also, we should allow the intelligence gathering community to use all means necessary to extract information from known terrorists. However, the means to extract should not be made public, they should be highly classified, but approved by a committee that does not include liberal commie-sympathizing traitorous morons like Pelosi. We do not need to let the terrorists how we are going to deal with them. Finally, there should be a provision to keep our intelligence gatherers from being prosecuted for their actions that would be detailed in these documents. Just to be fair, we should only allow the interrogations to be as severe as the terrorists use on our own people.

Jarhead on September 16, 2009 at 2:57 pm

Seriously, Obama is the biggest hypocrite ever to serve as President. I nominate DS to write the future bestseller , “You Lie” The Biography of Barack Obama

Bonzer Wolf on September 16, 2009 at 4:16 pm

I wonder how much more from the usurper from Kenya will the U.S. take before the revolution really begins? Fire arms and ammo sales are the highest in history, wonder why?

FREE on September 16, 2009 at 11:13 pm

Michael Macleod-Ball, the Acting Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, is more blunt about the ACLUs’ opposition to the reauthorization of all three of the provisions:

“The privacy rights of all Americans will continue to be at risk if we continue to let these statutes remain as they are.” He noted that they were encouraged about the administration’s willingness to discuss reform, but said “we are disappointed at its support for the reauthorization of the three expiring provisions.”

The first provision involves “roving wiretaps” and wide authority to monitor multiple communication systems.
The second provision deals with the so-called “business records” access authorization, known to critics as the “library provision” because it even allows the government to inspect people’s reading habits. It covers “any tangible things,” and the legal standard has been reduced to “simple relevance to an authorized investigation.” This section provides authority similar to grand jury subpoenas, except without grand juries, indictments, proof or anything else.
The third provision is known as the “Lone Wolf” provision. This is the part of the Patriot Act that allows government surveillance of people without any evidence.

The Patriot Act is unconstitutional. It gives the federal government powers that, in most instances, belong to the state and local governments. It has the federal government improperly involving the U.S. military (like the National Guard) in domestic law enforcement (the National Guard is supposed to be under the control of state governors). Many of the internal systemic checks against the abuses of the Act, such as powers of judicial oversight, have been eliminated or greatly reduced. The federal government under the Patriot Act also claims the authority to strip anyone of their citizenship with a simple “enemy combatant” label. It is inevitable that the federal government will begin (if they are not doing it already) to monitor domestic political or religious groups suspected of engaging in terrorism – and remember that Section 802 of the Act states that virtually any crime can be deemed to constitute “domestic terrorism” if it violates the “law” and endangers life.
Even a Justice Department investigation of the government’s use of the Patriot Act decided that the already sweeping powers were being abused. “We concluded that many of the problems we identified constituted serious misuse of the FBI’s national security letter authorities,” said Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine in a 2007 report about the (mis)use of the Patriot Act.
We must not allow the further loss of our rights and liberties by concentrating more new powers in the federal government. The Patriot Act was not brought into existence due to good intentions – rather it is the deliberate start of a slippery slope toward the fulfillment of the ruling philosophy of Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the totalitarian Soviet Union: “Power without limit, resting directly upon force, restrained by no laws, absolutely unrestrained by rules.”

(With thanks to Alex Newman and Steve Bonta of the New American magazine)

ramjordan on September 17, 2009 at 3:28 am

Debbie, this doesn’t make him a hypocrit. It makes him a liar.

Robert of Ottawa on September 17, 2009 at 9:34 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field