That was the headline on a column by Nat Hentoff, (below) a senior fellow at the Cato Instutute and a principled person whom I consider to be one the foremost civil libertarians in America today.
In the recent U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee review of the Act, Republicans senators protecting the Act, in a closed-door session, formed an odd alliance working with Obama administration officials on amendments blocking any major changes.
Then all but three Democrats, pressured by the Obama administration officials, voted for a watered-down "compromise" bill by Senators Patrick Leahy and Diane Feinstein. Feingold, Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and newly minted "Democrat" Arlen Specter (Pa.) had the courage to oppose the committee bill that with few exceptions, leaves the Act intact without any meaningful revisions.
Two Faced Obama
Obama, who as a candidate repeatedly attacked the PATRIOT Act and called for its revision in order to protect civil liberties now has abandoned that stance -- as he has so many of his glittering promises of change.
Instead Obama, a former professor of constitutional law, working with so-called "conservative" Republicans, thwarted attempts by Feingold to restore the constitutional civil liberties Bush's PATRIOT Act destroyed.
"In the end," Feingold says. "Democrats have to decide if they are going to stand up for the rights of the American people" or "allow the FBI to write our laws."
Policeman, Prosecutor, Judge & Jury
Hentoff quotes my former House colleague, Don Edwards (D-Ca). "No federal agency," said Congressman Edwards, "the CIA, the IRS, or the FBI, can be at the same time policeman, prosecutor, judge and jury. That is what constitutionally guaranteed due process is all about. It may sometimes be disorderly and unsatisfactory to some, but it is the essence of freedom."
The Constitution, Edwards continued, does not permit "federal interference" with Americans' speech or associations, and other such citizen constitutional rights, "except through the criminal justice system, armed with its ancient safeguards." Read that as meaning the PATRIOT Act.
A Solemn Oath
Apparently the Senate Republicans are not concerned about redressing the constitutional violations contained in the PATRIOT Act, a law that is the worst legislative attack on the Constitution since President John Adams and the 1789 Alien and Sedition Laws.
When I was 15-years-old, I swore my first Oath to support and defend the United States Constitution when I served as a young page boy in the House of Representatives. Later, as a Member of Congress (a Republican and a conservative), I took that same oath to uphold the Constitution, to which every congressman and senator currently serving has also supposedly sworn their allegiance.
To Hell with the Constitution?
So knowing that, how can we explain the U.S. Congress continuing to support an unconstitutional law, the PATRIOT Act, that virtually repeals the guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure in the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights?
My answer: fear. It's not justified fear of "terrorism " -- but cowardly fear of not politicians not getting reelected! Politics rules, to Hell with the U.S. Constitution!
In this special 44 page report I wrote (and just revised for the third time, Sept. 2009), you learn all about the PATRIOT Act and its far-reaching invasion of your rights -- and what you can do to defend yourself.
Plus, you'll automatically receive a FREE subscription to the world’s most popular offshore e-letter, The Sovereign Society Offshore A-Letter. With more than 230,000 readers world wide, The A-Letter keeps you in touch with global events and investments that affect your wealth and safety. Learn more here.
Comments