Obama supporters: Please explain why Barack Obama voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act.

As a candidate for the Senate in 2003, Obama said he supported repealing or replacing the Patriot Act, branding it “shoddy and dangerous” in a response to a National Organization for Women survey of candidates.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jfwiTMvbxKZec4z-ouww5y_5zfhgD8TMI7CO0
The Associated Press: Obama's Views Have Changed With Time When he ran for the Senate, Obama called the act a "shoddy and dangerous law" ... Obama's positions on handguns, health care and the Patriot Act. "Voters ...

Mr. President, four years ago, following one of the most devastating attacks in our nation's history, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act to give our nation's law enforcement the tools they needed to track down terrorists who plot and lurk within our own borders and all over the world - terrorists who, right now, are looking to exploit weaknesses in our laws and our security to carry out even deadlier attacks than we saw on September 11th.

We all agreed that we needed legislation to make it harder for suspected terrorists to go undetected in this country. Americans everywhere wanted that.

But soon after the PATRIOT Act passed, a few years before I ever arrived in the Senate, I began hearing concerns from people of every background and political leaning that this law didn't just provide law enforcement the powers it needed to keep us safe, but powers it didn't need to invade our privacy without cause or suspicion.

Now, at times this issue has tended to degenerate into an "either-or" type of debate. Either we protect our people from terror or we protect our most cherished principles. But that is a false choice. It asks too little of us and assumes too little about America.

Fortunately, last year, the Senate recognized that this was a false choice. We put patriotism before partisanship and engaged in a real, open, and substantive debate about how to fix the PATRIOT Act. And Republicans and Democrats came together to propose sensible improvements to the Act. Unfortunately, the House was resistant to these changes, and that's why we're voting on the compromise before us.

Let me be clear: this compromise is not as good as the Senate version of the bill, nor is it as good as the SAFE Act that I have cosponsored. I suspect the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel the same way. But, it's still better than what the House originally proposed.

This compromise does modestly improve the PATRIOT Act by strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe. In this compromise:


* We strengthened judicial review of both National Security Letters, the administrative subpoenas used by the FBI, and Section 215 orders, which can be used to obtain medical, financial and other personal records.

* We established hard time limits on sneak-and-peak searches and limits on roving wiretaps.

* We protected most libraries from being subject to National Security Letters.

* We preserved an individual's right to seek counsel and hire an attorney without fearing the FBI's wrath.

* And we allowed judicial review of the gag orders that accompany Section 215 searches.

The compromise is far from perfect. I would have liked to see stronger judicial review of National Security Letters and shorter time limits on sneak and peak searches, among other things.

Sen. Feingold has proposed several sensible amendments - that I support - to address these issues. Unfortunately, the Majority Leader is preventing Sen. Feingold from offering these amendments through procedural tactics. That is regrettable because it flies in the face of the bipartisan cooperation that allowed the Senate to pass unanimously its version of the Patriot Act - a version that balanced security and civil liberties, partisanship and patriotism.

The Majority Leader's tactics are even more troubling because we will need to work on a bipartisan basis to address national security challenges in the weeks and months to come. In particular, members on both sides of the aisle will need to take a careful look at President Bush's use of warrantless wiretaps and determine the right balance between protecting our security and safeguarding our civil liberties. This is a complex issue. But only by working together and avoiding election-year politicking will we be able to give our government the necessary tools to wage the war on terror without sacrificing the rule of law.

So, I will be supporting the Patriot Act compromise. But I urge my colleagues to continue working on ways to improve the civil liberties protections in the Patriot Act after it is reauthorized.

I thank the chair and yield the floor.

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060216-floor_statement_2/

This is what we get when sucky politicians
play to the right.

Did the DLC write that tripe?

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=85&subid=108&contentid=253475
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

The DLC isn't evil, but let's not be outright hypocrites.

I prefer to think it's an honest explanation.

I also know, from actual precedent, that if HRC said it, it would be labeled spin, decried as "corporate", and Hillary would be accused of mass murder.

The best way to evaluate votes and explanations is to be as charitable as possible AND to judge them as part of an entire record. Mistakes can be corrected, but cynicism leaves an indelible stain.

My take: Two excellent candidates. And let's not forget John Edwards, even though he isn't part of the circular firing squad.

--p!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Am I a racist for bring this up? :eyes:

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060216-floor_statement_2/

Let me be clear: this compromise is not as good as the Senate version of the bill, nor is it as good as the SAFE Act that I have cosponsored. I suspect the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel the same way. But, it's still better than what the House originally proposed.

This compromise does modestly improve the PATRIOT Act by strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe. In this compromise:


* We strengthened judicial review of both National Security Letters, the administrative subpoenas used by the FBI, and Section 215 orders, which can be used to obtain medical, financial and other personal records.

* We established hard time limits on sneak-and-peak searches and limits on roving wiretaps.

* We protected most libraries from being subject to National Security Letters.

* We preserved an individual's right to seek counsel and hire an attorney without fearing the FBI's wrath.

* And we allowed judicial review of the gag orders that accompany Section 215 searches.

The compromise is far from perfect. I would have liked to see stronger judicial review of National Security Letters and shorter time limits on sneak and peak searches, among other things.

Sen. Feingold has proposed several sensible amendments - that I support - to address these issues. Unfortunately, the Majority Leader is preventing Sen. Feingold from offering these amendments through procedural tactics. That is regrettable because it flies in the face of the bipartisan cooperation that allowed the Senate to pass unanimously its version of the Patriot Act - a version that balanced security and civil liberties, partisanship and patriotism.

Kucinich on the Patriot Act 2004
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDyE-_Aba8A

Only Traitors and cowards occupy the Congress... Corporate slaves all.

You constant bashing has made him mad!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/24/AR2007062401046.html

The Democratic presidential hopeful pledged to work side-by-side with the rest of the world on issues like nuclear proliferation, poverty, economic development in Latin America and the violence in Darfur.

"While we're at it," he said, "we're going to close Guantanamo. And we're going to restore habeas corpus. ... We're going to lead by example _ by not just word but by deed. That's our vision for the future."

Go ahead. Look it up.

"We sometimes forget that during the Clinton presidency, the United States ran an extralegal detention camp on Guantanamo—and went to federal court to defend its right to do so. The camp during the Clinton years was by no means the nightmarish operation it is now; certainly, there weren't allegations of torture. But Guantanamo under Clinton produced its own share of suffering and abuses—and perhaps most important for today, the court decision that shut it down was eventually wiped off the books, thanks to legal maneuvers by the Clinton Justice Department.


"Despite signals on the campaign trail that he intended to shut down the camp, Clinton changed his mind."






http://www.slate.com/id/2132979

is he is so sanctimonious about other politicians and cleaning when quite frankly he's basically just another politician who will say what it takes to get votes, change his speech to whoever he's pandering to and then completely do the opposite when elected.

So basically anything he says now is bull.

nt

It's too easy to comb through their voting records and find "inconsistencies" that make snappy slogans to feed to Dumbericans who know nothing about how Congress works. And yet our 3 frontrunners are Senators. I can just as easily find examples of Hillary "flip-flops", which were probably perfectly justifiable votes or legislative strategies. Same with John Edwards. Richardson would have been the ideal candidate, except for him having spent time in Congress.

they are knee-deep in the major national issues and policies of the times makes them MORE qualified, to me, to be President than a doofus Governor who knows about the pothole-repair budget and how to promote state tourism. This is the year of the Senator. Governors don't know SHIT about foreign policy, intelligence, and defense, and it shows with Chimpy, Mittens and Huck.

However, history shows that legislators have a real hard time getting elected because their voting records can be easily used against them. John Kerry was light years more qualified than Bush but his "I voted for the spending bill before I voted against it" was easily turned into a talking point. What the statement Kerry made described was a perfectly legitimate decision to switch his vote because of what the repukes were tacking onto it but the "flipflop" label stuck nonetheless. Governors have less of a problem with this because they sign or veto bills after they are completed.

this is not a problem with senators, it is a problem with the system.

He is, and never has been anything but, a candidate for president since the day he made the convention speech.

eom

In late 2005, the Democrats and some Republicans filibustered rather than pass the first version of the new Patriot act. What Obama voted for was an improved bill.

This was in 2006 and after a filibuster to insure that some of the worst provisions were removed or fixed. HRC herself voted for it - as she had the original bill that was worse (all Senators but Feingold did). This was a sleazy attempt to make what was a reasonable vote seem a flip flop. Many Senators, including the Presidential nominee, took the position Obama took in 2004 - that the Patriot Act had problems and needed to be changed.

The Democrats had won many improvements in the Patriot Act. They passed this version because the alternative was that the old Patriot Act would stay in place. It was never a possiblity that there would be no Patriot Act. They thought they had gotten as much as they could at that point in time. A few days later, a group of Senators concerned with the new enacted Patriot Act, including Obama but not HRC,, signed onto an amendment that would fix remaining problems and sunset parts of the bill again. The idea was when there was sufficient support - it would be brought to the floor.

Here's the 2006 roll call:
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Conference Report (H.R. 3199 Conference Report )
Vote Number: 29 Vote Date: March 2, 2006, 03:01 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Conference Report Agreed to
Measure Number: H.R. 3199
Measure Title: A bill to extend and modify authorities needed to combat terrorism, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 89
NAYs 10
Not Voting 1
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea

Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Not Voting
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Talent (R-MO), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Here is the amendment from the Senate record:

"S.2369
Title: A bill to require a more reasonable period for delayed-notice search warrants, to provide enhanced judicial review of FISA orders and national security letters, to require an enhanced factual basis for a FISA order, and to create national security letter sunset provisions.
Sponsor: Sen Specter, Arlen (introduced 3/6/2006) Cosponsors (13)
Latest Major Action: 3/6/2006 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Jump to: Summary, Major Actions, All Actions, Titles, Cosponsors, Committees, Related Bill Details, Amendments
SUMMARY AS OF:
3/6/2006--Introduced.

Amends the federal criminal code to: (1) reduce from 30 to seven days after the issuance of a warrant the period in which notice must be given to the subject of the warrant that it was issued to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense; and (2) repeal provisions treating as conclusive the certification of the Attorney General or the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation that certain disclosures of information endanger national security.

Amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to: (1) authorize judicial review of nondisclosure orders (orders prohibiting persons from disclosing that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has sought information); (2) repeal the requirement prohibiting judicial review of production or nondisclosure orders until one year after such order.

Requires a production order (an order from the FBI Director to produce any tangible thing, such a book, document, or record) to either: (1) pertain to a foreign power, agent of a foreign power, or an individual in contact with, or known to, a suspected agent of a foreign power; or (2) be relevant to the activities of a suspected agent of a foreign power who is the subject of the authorized investigation.

Amends the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 to sunset, as of December 31, 2009, the national security letter authority provisions added to the federal criminal code, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Right to Financial Privacy Act, and the National Security Act of 1947.
MAJOR ACTIONS:

***NONE***

ALL ACTIONS:

3/6/2006:
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S1791-1792)
3/6/2006:
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S1792-1793)

TITLE(S): (italics indicate a title for a portion of a bill)

***NONE***

COSPONSORS(13), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)


Sen Cantwell, Maria - 3/9/2006
Sen Craig, Larry E. - 3/6/2006
Sen Durbin, Richard - 3/6/2006
Sen Feingold, Russell D. - 3/6/2006
Sen Feinstein, Dianne - 3/6/2006
Sen Hagel, Chuck - 3/6/2006
Sen Kerry, John F. - 3/6/2006
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. - 5/15/2006
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. - 3/6/2006
Sen Murkowski, Lisa - 3/6/2006
Sen Obama, Barack - 3/6/2006
Sen Salazar, Ken - 3/6/2006
Sen Sununu, John E. - 3/6/2006

COMMITTEE(S):

Committee/Subcommittee: Activity:
Senate Judiciary Referral, In Committee

RELATED BILL DETAILS:

***NONE***

AMENDMENT(S):

***NONE*** "

There's a big difference there. His choice was between "Old Patriot Act vs. New, Restricted Patriot Act"

Methinks he chose correctly

MP enjoys attacking Democrats.

Unless you want to help clean the blood from the hatchet, shush it!!

Its not the same measure by a stretch. I'd like to repeal it and start from scratch, but there's more than one way to skin a cat, I suppose.

there is no such thing as a good 'Patriot Act', the very damned name should give you a clue! Let me guess, mothers maiden name Hoover and dads was McCarthy?

could be entrusted with more power (since this country is the oligarchy underground, rather than real democracy that is claimed)

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060216-floor_statement_2/

Let me be clear: this compromise is not as good as the Senate version of the bill, nor is it as good as the SAFE Act that I have cosponsored. I suspect the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel the same way. But, it's still better than what the House originally proposed.

This compromise does modestly improve the PATRIOT Act by strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe. In this compromise:


* We strengthened judicial review of both National Security Letters, the administrative subpoenas used by the FBI, and Section 215 orders, which can be used to obtain medical, financial and other personal records.

* We established hard time limits on sneak-and-peak searches and limits on roving wiretaps.

* We protected most libraries from being subject to National Security Letters.

* We preserved an individual's right to seek counsel and hire an attorney without fearing the FBI's wrath.

* And we allowed judicial review of the gag orders that accompany Section 215 searches.

The compromise is far from perfect. I would have liked to see stronger judicial review of National Security Letters and shorter time limits on sneak and peak searches, among other things.

Sen. Feingold has proposed several sensible amendments - that I support - to address these issues. Unfortunately, the Majority Leader is preventing Sen. Feingold from offering these amendments through procedural tactics. That is regrettable because it flies in the face of the bipartisan cooperation that allowed the Senate to pass unanimously its version of the Patriot Act - a version that balanced security and civil liberties, partisanship and patriotism.




There was no way it would NOT be reauthorized. Thank goodness, at least it was a little better for civil liberties.

Maybe because he wanted to have a shot in hell of winning the general election?

:shrug:

No prize, sorry.