yeah, so maybe you aren't free

[Guest guest]

Patriot Act moves ahead despite opposition

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate overwhelmingly rejected an effort

Thursday to block renewing the Patriot Act, the 2001 law passed weeks

after the Sept. 11 attacks to help the government hunt down terrorists.

 

The 96-3 vote was no suprise to Sen. Russell Feingold, the Wisconsin

Democrat who was the lone senator to oppose the law four and a half

years ago and is the chief obstacle to extending 16 provisions now due

to expire March 10.

 

Feingold, who is exploring seeking his party's presidential nomination

in 2008, plans to make the Senate spend several more days on the bill

and complained that Majority Leader Bill Frist had used procedural

maneuvers to prevent him from trying to amend the bill.

 

" We still have not addressed some of the most significant problems with

the Patriot Act, " Feingold said.

 

Only Sens. Jim Jeffords, I-Vt., and Robert C. Byrd, R-W.Va., supported

Feingold on Thursday's vote to stop what Frist had characterized as a

filibuster preventing the Senate from acting on the legilsation. Sen.

David Vitter, R-La., did not vote.

 

The changes Feingold was seeking were amendments to set a four-year

expiration date on the use of National Security Letters - demands for

records issued by administrators - under the Patriot Act.

 

Another amendment would require the government to notify the subject of

a secret search within seven days or obtain court permission to

maintain the secrecy for a longer period, rather than the 30-day

requirement in the legislation being considered.

 

Feingold said the new deal brokered with the White House makes such

minor changes to the original Patriot Act that it " will still allow

government fishing expeditions. "

 

While the filibuster began as a lone endeavor, Feingold had plenty of

company in wanting the 2001 anti-terrorism law to include more curbs on

the government's power to investigate people.

 

The bill's sponsor, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said a full makeover was

unlikely to pass Congress before March 10.

 

" Sometimes cosmetics will make a beauty out of a beast and provide

enough cover for senators to change their vote, " Specter told reporters

Wednesday.

 

Indeed, virtually every senator who had stood with Feingold last year

to kill a House-Senate agreement abandoned the effort this month after

two of them, both Republicans, struck a deal with the White House to

add more privacy protections.

 

Now, the legislation's supporters include some of the chamber's most

senior Democrats, and the 60 votes required to overcome Feingold's

filibuster.

 

Frist said the Senate planned procedural votes on the matter beginning

Thursday and stretching beyond congressional recess next week. Final

votes were expected to resume at the end of the month.

 

Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., shared Feingold's concern but said his talks

with the White House produced improvements to the law's civil liberties

protections.

 

" In an effort like this, no party ever gets everything that they want, "

Sununu said.

 

Under the deal, recipients of court-approved subpoenas for information

in terrorist investigations would have the right to challenge a

requirement that they refrain from telling anyone.

 

Another new protection would remove a requirement that an individual

provide the FBI with the name of an attorney consulted about a National

Security Letter.

 

A third improvement, supporters say, makes clear that most libraries

are not subject to National Security Letter demands for information

about suspected terrorists.

 

But Feingold said the new deal makes only one modest improvement over

the defeated House-Senate compromise and current law: It makes clear

that there would be judicial review of " gag orders " issued with

court-ordered subpoenas for information, but sets several conditions.

Under one, the review can only take place after a year and requires the

recipient of the order to prove the government has acted in bad faith,

Feingold said.

 

" That is a virtually impossible standard to meet, " he said.

 

 

 

" I challenge anyone to live on my salary " [$158,000 a year].

Tom Delay