Oh No . . . Not Another Patriot Act Renewal

By now, I'm sure that everyone is aware that the Congress and President Obama have decided to again renew the expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act.

I had to search quite a while to find a roll call vote on the "Patriot Act Renewal". I finally found an article that explained why. The legislation to renew the expiring provisions of the Patriot Act AS IS were buried in a vote described as:

House Vote #67 (Feb 25, 2010)

On Motion to Concur in Senate Amendments: H R 3961 Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-67&sort=party

I'm not sure what's worse; Describing a piece of legislation that erodes the liberty of U.S. citizens with a ridiculously contrived and appropriately Orwellian acronym which spells "USA PATRIOT" or burying the renewal of it in a bill about physician payment reform.

At least Peter Welch voted against it.

The Senate passed the bill by a voice vote with little or no debate.

Some Democrats, like Senator Leahy and President Obama will talk about how they really, really, really wanted to add more safeguards to protect civil liberties, but those Republican meanies threatened to filibuster, so they just HAD to renew the expiring parts of the law in its current form. The argument is completely absurd. I don't doubt that the Republicans were largely in favor of passing the renewal. However, if the Democratic majority was honestly attempting to protect our civil liberties, they had every opportunity to do so. As an aside, I think it's absurd to believe that it's possible to amend a bill that is a fundamental violation of civil liberties with any sort of provision that's going to "safeguard" civil liberties. However, let us assume that the Democrats were being sincere in their claims. With the expiration clause already built in to the legislation, the Democrats could have issued a clear ultimatum to Republicans. Either include these new measures to "safeguard" civil liberties, or proceed with your filibuster, and let the provisions expire as scheduled. If the Democrats had any genuine interest in protecting civil liberties, the idea of renewing the act in its current form would not even have been on the table!

When it comes to legislation that infringes upon civil liberties, otherwise increases the size and scope of Federal government, or enriches well connected special interests at the expense of the average U.S. citizens, Republicans and Democrats always seem to find that noble spirit of bi-partisanship