cross posted in my blog.
In virtually every speech since Iowa, Hillary has accused Obama of being against the Patriot Act, then voting to re-authorize it as soon as he was a Senator.
And while that is one of the things in Obama's record that I am less than content about, it is important to note that her accusations are not 100% accurate.
The Patriot Act was passed on October 25, 2001, a month after September 11. Only one Senator had the cahones to vote against it, and it wasn’t Hillary; it was Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin (D). Sen. Mary Landrieu was the next closest thing to a Nay vote by refusing to vote on the bill.
What Hillary, who voted for the initial Patriot Act in 2001 and for its reauthorization in March 2006, is doing is intentionally neglecting the lengths to which Obama, jointly with Sen. Feingold, went to to improve the Patriot Act and restore some of the rights violated by the first bill. The 2006 bill was called the "USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act."
Unlike Hillary, who voted yes to both instances, Obama was not content to reauthorize the Patriot Act without condition. Below is his floor statement on why he ended up voting for the second version of the bill and what was different about it.
"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." - February 16, 2006
It should be noted that like Obama, even Feingold voted in favor of the reauthorization, given the acceptance of his and Obama's suggested amendments.
I have looked everywhere to find a floor statement by Hillary Clinton about the need to improve the Patriot Act and cannot find one. Go figure. She criticizes Obama’s record on the Patriot Act, which he sought to improve before reauthorizing, when as far as I can find, she didn’t even have the gumption to speak out against its initial inception on the Senate floor (and if someone can find me evidence otherwise, please, provide a link).
She’s made it clear that she wants our candidates and their voting records vetted, but apparently that doesn't apply to her this time around.
UPDATE: If you like this diary, please Recommend it, I don't want this information to disappear from people who need it to make an informed decision.