National Security Roundup
Broad agreement today on terms of a Patriot Act extension, but Feingold isn’t having any of it:
Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said the agreement would “continue to build upon the civil liberties protections that are in place but do so in a way that doesn’t compromise our national security priorities.”
“We’re pleased that this important legislation is moving forward,” he said.
The compromise focused on three areas:
_Giving recipients of court-approved subpoenas for information in terrorist investigations the right to challenge a requirement that they refrain from telling anyone.
_Eliminating a requirement that an individual provide the
FBI with the name of a lawyer consulted about a National Security Letter, which is a demand for records issued by investigators.
_Clarifying that most libraries are not subject to demands in those letters for information about suspected terrorists.
While there was no immediate reaction from House Republicans, Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, one of the Senate negotiators, said House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. had been kept apprised of the negotiations. Craig said that with the Senate and the White House now in concert, “there will be no additional negotiations” with the House.
Reaction from Democrats was divided.
Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, second-ranking in the Democratic leadership, appeared at the GOP news conference. He said the compromise included “significant progress” toward protecting basic liberties and that he planned to support it.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein , D-Calif., also announced her support. “I will vote for this bill. It is a substantial improvement,” she said in a statement.
The party’s leader, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, said in a statement that the agreement among Republicans “appears to be a step in the right direction.”
Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., threatened a filibuster.
Thanks for meeting us halfway, Russ!…
No doubt you’ve read the new details on the thwarted 2002 attempt to hit the Library Tower in L.A. by now, but if not, here you go…
A new A.P. poll shows the Bush NSA defense is having a positive effect…
This one seems a bit odd to me:
_Eliminating a requirement that an individual provide the
FBI with the name of a lawyer consulted about a National Security Letter, which is a demand for records issued by investigators.
Hasn’t Al Qaida used their American lawyers to pass secret messages before? Why would “The FBI has requested information about our ‘young bombmakers’ club, and I can’t tell anyone but our lawyer” not be such a message??
What right is this intelligence need now being balanced against? For what pressing Constitutional protection have Democrats insisted on such a glaring loophole? We have a Constitutional due process right to be represented by counsel, and to confer secretly with our attorney — how exactly is not telling the government who our lawyer is a critical part of a fair legal process??