Still temporary. Still PATRIOTic.

January 14, 2011 12:00 PM

USA PATRIOT is up for renewal again. Tim Nichols of the Independent Examiner reports that "nobody notices" as Mike Rogers (R-MI) floats the renewal. As we noted last year during another quiet renewal, this is not the first time the Obama administration has been confronted with the idea. While groups as disparate as the Cato Institute and the Randolph Bourne Institute's antiwar.com speak out against the possibility, mainstream media sources seem uninterested.
posted by anarch (29 comments total)

Civil liberties: still not newsworthy.
posted by bearwife at 12:02 PM on January 14, 2011 [4 favorites]

The great thing about the way news works now is that a lot of stories are now picked up from the internet. Many times my wife will see a news story and I'll say, "I saw that on MetaFilter Tuesday!"

Point being, posts like this help issues bubble up and become stories in the national media.
posted by Mister_A at 12:02 PM on January 14, 2011 [18 favorites]

I wonder if the rabid spending slashers would bat an eye at the cost of the Patriot Act? Perhaps it's time to turn them on to something worth gutting, instead of trying to repeal HCR?
posted by msbutah at 12:17 PM on January 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

Patriot Act is everything but.
posted by AugustWest at 12:18 PM on January 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

They chilled out on gutting the HCR when the OMB (I think it was) pointed out that it would cost a couple hundred billion to do so. If these guys are serious about cutting, I agree, DHS and especially DoD are Depts. that should be scrutinized and right-sized.
posted by Mister_A at 12:19 PM on January 14, 2011

Patriot Act is everything but.

False. The Patriot Act is EXACTLY what it purports to be, something acting as a patriotic.
posted by blue_beetle at 12:22 PM on January 14, 2011 [9 favorites]

I'm ashamed to say that Mike Rogers is my Representative (in name only, he has refused to meet with constituents for years). I can, without reservation say, anything with his name on it should be opposed.
posted by HuronBob at 12:22 PM on January 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

Is it the .com or .org site that's up for renewal??
posted by cjorgensen at 12:26 PM on January 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Is this something I would have to have "Civil Rights" to understand?
posted by DaddyNewt at 12:31 PM on January 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

The only reason it hasn't been enshrined in an Amendment to the Constitution is that it would be a step down to be added to the document it supersedes.

(oooh buuurn!)
posted by Eideteker at 12:32 PM on January 14, 2011 [4 favorites]

BtW, if my fellow NY mefites ever elect me to Congress (I'll take over for Rangel, who represents the area where I live), I will do my best to work "oooh burrrrn" and similar phrases into my congressional rhetoric. Just throwing that out there.
posted by Eideteker at 12:35 PM on January 14, 2011 [9 favorites]

Ironically, we recently learned that now one tip suffices to add a name to the terrorist watch list.

Epic lulz if a couple senators kills this using rotating secret holds. It'd be ironic since Republicans just used those to staved off the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, which officially had unanimous support. Btw, Republicans had previously gutted WPEA act of protections for holders of security clearances.

Also, tomorrow anonymous has rallies in support of wikileaks.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:43 PM on January 14, 2011 [5 favorites]

Is it the .com or .org site that's up for renewal??

dhs.gov
posted by Xurando at 12:44 PM on January 14, 2011

BtW, if my fellow NY mefites ever elect me to Congress (I'll take over for Rangel, who represents the area where I live), I will do my best to work "oooh burrrrn" and similar phrases into my congressional rhetoric. Just throwing that out there.

Surely THIS is change I can believe in.
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 12:49 PM on January 14, 2011

I can't even imagine how politically difficult it would be to not renew the Patriot Act at this point. It's barbed policy: easy to slide in; impossible to slide out. This results in what's referred to as a downward spiral, but that's a metaphor for another day.
posted by tapesonthefloor at 12:56 PM on January 14, 2011

This is right up there with the TSA. There isn't anyone in DC who wants their name associated with taking it down for fear of something happening down the road that they'll be blamed for. We'll never be rid of either.
posted by Legomancer at 12:58 PM on January 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Check out the strange shit Congress did to extend the Patriot Act.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:03 PM on January 14, 2011 [5 favorites]

Who are these non-politician people who like the Patriot Act? Conservatives and Tea-Baggers seem to largely hate most aspects of it (though, perhaps, they don't associate those things with the acts), progressives hate it, moderates hate it.

Is there an enormous, majority groundswell belief in the value of it that I'm totally unaware of?
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:26 PM on January 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

This is right up there with the TSA. There isn't anyone in DC who wants their name associated with taking it down for fear of something happening down the road that they'll be blamed for

I don't have numbers, but I bet more than half of Americans are willing to take the risk of "something happening" in exchange for civil liberties and less painful trips through the airport. The problem is, it's never put to the test. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy because, frankly, Obama and almost every Democratic member of Congress are utterly lacking in moral courage. A lot of people might respect them for doing what's right at the risk of a few votes, but it looks like we won't find out anytime soon.
posted by drjimmy11 at 1:53 PM on January 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

jeffburdges, this section from that link is actually not unusual at all:

You see, H.R. 3961 originally started with that title and subject, and it passed the House in November. Then, this past Wednesday, Majority Leader Harry Reid ripped the guts out of the bill and replaced it with the Patriot extensions. The Senate then passed that version of the bill and sent it back to the House, where it was approved Thursday night.

The arcane way Congress behaves and moves things around causes this sort of thing to happen all the time. I don't recall the specifics of why but it's not about deception, it's a procedural move.
posted by phearlez at 1:54 PM on January 14, 2011

And hell, Bush looked at the FBI report that more-or-less predicted 9/11, said "well you covered your asses," and ignored it. That's not a conspiracy theory; it's public record. And he got elected to another term.
posted by drjimmy11 at 1:54 PM on January 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

And if *I* ever get elected to Congress, I promise to vote against anything with "USA," "patriot" or the name of a child in the title without even bothering to read it.
posted by drjimmy11 at 1:55 PM on January 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Russ Feingold for being the only US Senator to vote against the Patriot Act during the original vote. Unfortunately for those of us who like it when our elected officials attempt to protect our rights, he was defeated in the recent election by a private business owner with no prior political experience, Ron Johnson.

I had to Google "Ron Johnson patriot act" in order to find any information about his stance on it, since his campaign pretty much refused to discuss anything beyond creating jobs and cutting spending. It was worth the time to Google it for this gem alone:

"I certainly share the concerns on civil liberties now that you have Barack Obama in power versus George Bush. I wasn't overly concerned with George Bush in power," he said.

BTW, if Ron Johnson is half as good at creating jobs and cutting spending as he is at buying ads that *claim* he will create jobs and cut spending, than everyone will be gainfully employed and our budget will be balanced in no time.
posted by theBigKahuna at 2:14 PM on January 14, 2011 [4 favorites]

I don't recall the specifics of why but it's not about deception, it's a procedural move.

The fundamental reason is the Senate wants to introduce legislation that involves revenue is constitutionally required (Article I, Section 7) to originate in the House. That same section says that the Senate may "propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

So, when the Senate want to introduce a revenue bill, they grab a House bill that's been sent to them (thus, originating in the House) and amend it into a revenue bill.

Also, grabbing a House resolution that's already been passed can skip several steps in the House -- it's already been passed, you're just voting on an amendment to the bill.
posted by eriko at 2:22 PM on January 14, 2011

I've barely noticed anything having to do with the PATRIOT Act lately. Which is a horrifying thing for me to realize, personally, because it tells me that I'm getting used to it all, and that's what those who are dreaming up the PATRIOT Act's successors - because, believe me, there will be successors - are counting on.

I'm depressed.
posted by jhandey at 2:40 PM on January 14, 2011

Water continues to heat, frogs continue not noticing.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 3:51 PM on January 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

http://www.contactingthecongress.org

E-mail or call your representative. Futile, but then they can't claim ignorance of our desires!
posted by rubah at 7:23 PM on January 14, 2011

House Fails to Extend Patriot Act Spy Powers
posted by homunculus at 6:12 PM on February 8, 2011 [1 favorite]

"I saw that on MetaFilter Tuesday!"
I have noticed that Metafilter is most always a month or more ahead of the mainstream media...hell, sometimes years!
posted by QueerAngel28 at 8:52 AM on February 9, 2011