Updated, 2:20 p.m., May 27
It used to be that Sen. Harry Reid had a problem with smearing surveillance skeptics as terrorist allies. But now that some Republicans oppose the Patriot Act, Reid is calling the objectors Osama?s BFFs. Dick Cheney would be proud.
All the libertarian senator Rand Paul wanted was to add amendments to the government?s cherished surveillance law that would protect Americans? privacy. For this, Reid, the Senate Democratic leader, charged that Paul?s efforts would ?increase the risk of a retaliatory terrorist strike against the homeland and hamper our ability to deal a truly fatal blow to al-Qaida.?
It?s not just that Reid is demagoguing Rand Paul. It?s that Reid?s objections betray the depths of his hypocrisy on both surveillance and its politics, as revealed by the sophisticated consistency-generating algorithm known as Google.
Remember back when a Republican was in the White House and demanded broad surveillance authority? Here?s Reid back then.??Whether out of convenience, incompetence, or outright disdain for the rule of law, the administration chose to ignore Congress and ignore the Constitution,? Reid said about Bush?s warrantless surveillance program. When Bush insisted Congress entrench that surveillance with legislation in 2008, Reid turned around and demanded Bush ?stop fear-mongering and start being honest with the American people about national security.? Any claim about the detrimental impact about a lapse in widespread surveillance were ?scare tactics? to Reid that??irresponsibly distort reality.? (Then Reid rolled over for Bush.)
That?s nowhere near the end of Reid?s hypocrisy here. When the Senate debated renewing the Patriot Act in 2006, Reid, a supporter of the bill?s surveillance procedures, himself slowed up the bill?s passage to allow amendments to it ? the better to allow ?sensible checks on the arbitrary exercise of executive power.? Sounding a whole lot like Rand Paul, the 2006-vintage Reid registered his ?objection to the procedural maneuver under which Senators have been blocked from offering any amendments to this bill? and reminded his colleagues,??the hallmark of the Senate is free speech and open debate.?
Reid could hardly be more of an opportunist here. He favors broad surveillance authorities ? just as long as those scary Republicans stop being mean to liberals. When Attorney General John Ashcroft warned civil libertarians that their ?phantoms of lost liberty? only aid terrorists,? Reid told CNN on December 8, 2001 that ?people should just cool their jets? ? but not that Ashcroft was actually, you know, wrong. By contrast, the ultra-conservative pundit Bob Novak said Ashcroft made ?one of the most disreputable statements I have heard from an attorney general.?
Ultimately, for all of Reid?s doomsaying, it appears?Reid acquiesced to Paul, who?ll get to offer his Patriot amendments after all if he can overcome some GOP procedural maneuvering. A final Senate vote on the three expiring provisions of the Patriot Act is expected later today. It appears the only thing more permanent than wide-ranging surveillance is hypocrisy about it.
Update: This response comes from Adam Jentleson, a spokesman for Reid:
?For the record, this was never about privacy. It was always about one senator?s ideological politics putting our national security at risk.
?Senator Reid has always fought to protect Americans? privacy and will continue to do so because he recognizes that we must maintain vigorous oversight over the use of the tools provided by the Patriot Act in order to protect the privacy of average citizens. Thanks to Senate Democrats led by Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy, the Department of Justice has already begun to implement a number of key privacy protections and oversight mechanisms. We sought to codify some of these efforts, but faced intractable Republican opposition.
?We also defeated House Republicans? attempt to seek long-term ? and, in some cases, even permanent ? extensions of these authorities with no additional oversight. Instead, we secured a shorter, four-year sunset that will ensure we have the opportunity to revisit these authorities if any abuses are committed.
?Senator Paul?s sticking point had nothing to do with protecting the privacy of average Americans. To the contrary, he was threatening to let the Patriot Act expire ? and put our national security at risk ? in order to push an amendment that would let terrorists cover up their gun purchases.
?In fact, before we reached a final agreement, Senator Paul rejected a prior offer from Senator Reid that would have given him votes on four of his amendments, despite clear statements from FBI Director Robert Mueller and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper that letting the Patriot Act expire would have posed significant national security risks.?
Photo: Office of Senator Harry Reid
See Also:
national geographic antm dialysis the band perry 9 news beyonce radar online
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.