Why the Hell Did Democrats
Just Extend the Patriot Act?
House leadership included the
measure in a government funding
bill—and even members of the
Congressional Progressive Caucus
went along with it.
By Sam Adler-Bell
November 24/25, 2019 "Information
Clearing House"
- It may seem to
many Americans that Washington
is entirely consumed by the
impeachment inquiry, and that no
other important business is
getting done on Capitol Hill.
But on Tuesday, in a break from
televised hearings, the House of
Representatives voted to fund
the government through December
20. If passed by the Senate, the
continuing resolution would
prevent a government shutdown
and forestall a debate about
border-wall funding.
That’s all well and good, except
that Democratic leaders had
slipped something else into the
bill:
a three-month extension of the
Patriot Act, the post-9/11 law
that gave the federal government
sweeping surveillance and search
powers and circumvented
traditional law-enforcement
rules. Key provisions of the
Patriot Act were set to expire
on December 15, including
Section 215, the legal
underpinning of the call detail
records program exposed in the
very first Edward Snowden leak.
“It’s surreal,” Representative
Justin Amash told me on Tuesday,
just before the vote. Amash, an
independent who left the
Republican Party over his
opposition to President Trump,
pointed to the hypocrisy on both
sides of the aisle. Republicans
have “decried FISA abuse”
against the president and his
aides, he said, referring to the
Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act,
“and Democrats have highlighted
Trump’s abuse of his executive
powers, yet they’re teaming up
to extend the administration’s
authority to warrantlessly
gather data on Americans.”
Are You Tired Of
The Lies And
Non-Stop Propaganda?
|
By
tucking the measure into a
must-pass bill, House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi forced many members
who oppose the Patriot Act to
vote in favor of its extension.
“Although I do have serious
concerns with reauthorizing
Section 215,” Representative
Bobby Rush of Illinois
told
The Hill, “we must focus
on the bigger picture here.” In
late October, Rush signed a
letter
co-authored by Representatives
Rashida Tlaib and Earl
Blumenauer, which read, “We will
not support any legislation that
extends Section 215’s sunset
date if it fails to contain
robust reforms that protect
innocent people from unjust
surveillance.”
On Monday night, Amash submitted
an amendment to strip the
Patriot Act language from the
budget bill, but the amendment
was blocked by Democrats on the
Rules Committee.
Just 10 Democrats defied the
leadership to vote against the
resolution, including Tlaib,
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna
Pressley, and Ilhan Omar (a.k.a.
“the Squad”). “I cannot in good
conscience vote in favor of a
[continuing resolution] that
reauthorizes unconstitutional
mass surveillance authorities,”
Tlaib told me, “especially under
a president who has retweeted
images of his opponents jailed
and suggests anyone who
disagrees with him is a
criminal.” AOC
tweeted
before the vote, “Yeah that’s
gonna be a no from me dog.”
Ultimately, the funding bill passed
231-192, mostly on party lines.
Some advocates have questioned whether
the Congressional Progressive Caucus
(CPC), which includes the Squad, should
have done more to combat—or, at least,
register its dissatisfaction with—the
last-minute maneuver by Democratic
leadership. On Wednesday morning,
leaders of the CPC and the libertarian
House Freedom Caucus circulated a joint
letter on Capitol Hill calling for
extensive reforms to the Patriot Act
before it is reauthorized. But when it
came time for the floor vote, CPC
co-chairs Pramila Jayapal and Mark Pocan
voted in favor of the funding measure.
So did most of the caucus’s members. The
only person in CPC leadership to vote
against the bill was Omar.
“We needed a show of resolve from House
progressives to underscore that
protections for civil liberties are
vital,” said Norman Solomon, the
co-founder of digital activist group
RootsAction.org. “Instead we got a
cave-in from CPC leadership along with
all but 10 Democrats.”
“There’s no other way to spin this,” a
progressive staffer on the Hill told me.
“This was a major capitulation. The
progressive caucus has touted itself as
an organization that can wield power and
leverage the votes of its 90 members.
And they didn’t lift a finger.
Democratic leadership rammed this down
their throats.”
Repealing the call records program had been
considered relatively low-hanging fruit by
reform advocates—not least because it’s no
longer operational. The National Security Agency
announced a year ago that it had shut down the
program after a series of
compliance mishaps
(during which many millions of innocent
Americans’ phone records were accidentally
collected). Lawmakers in both parties have
expressed bewilderment about why they should
reauthorize a program the NSA doesn’t use.
But in recent hearings, Trump administration
officials have argued that the government should
retain the authority in case it needs it later.
In early November, an NSA official
told the Senate
Judiciary Committee the agency feared losing a
“tool in our toolbox” that could prove “valuable
moving forward.”
Thanks
to House Democrats, those fears are allayed for
the moment.
The late-game maneuver
irked some advocacy groups,
which have argued that Democrats’ broader
complaints about the Trump administration—its
white nationalist
advisers, hostility to immigrants, disregard for
the Constitution, and disdain for the
press—should compel them to prioritize
surveillance reform, too.
“Democrats are actively arguing that Donald
Trump is unfit for office,” said Sandy Fulton of
Free Press. “They’ve repeatedly acknowledged
that he’s a threat to our most vulnerable
communities. And yet they’re going to give him
the Patriot Act?” Democratic leaders want to
isolate the debate about intelligence from the
debate about Trump’s fitness for office, Fulton
explained. “They want to have these two
conversations separately. But that doesn’t make
sense. They should be the same conversation.”
A CPC
spokesperson defended its members’ support of
the continuing resolution. While acknowledging
the caucus would have “preferred a clean CR
without the 215 extension,” she said, “the top
priority for the Progressive Caucus is to ensure
major surveillance reform is included in any
ultimate reauthorization.” The extension will
help this goal, she argued: “Without a short
extension that allows us to obtain these major
reforms, we would end up in a much worse
position.”
Jayapal,
the CPC co-chair, denied that this was a
situation of Democratic leadership bearing down
on progressives. “That happens pretty often,”
she said, laughing. “So I actually know what
that feels like. This wasn’t one of them.”
According to Jayapal, negotiations between
members of the Judiciary Committee and the NSA-friendly
House Permanent Subcommittee on Intelligence (HPSCI)
were going well. “Almost every single thing in
our
letter has been
addressed, but not quite to our level of
satisfaction,” Jayapal said. “We’re still
pushing really hard, and we need this extra time
to be able to finish that.” Without HPSCI’s
buy-in, she said, “there’s no point in marking
up a bill … because that is often where we run
into problems.”
But
some advocates say the best way to get buy-in
from the intelligence committee is a show of
strength. It would only have taken a few dozen
progressive defections to kill the continuing
resolution, after which the leadership would
have been forced to strip the Patriot Act from
the bill and schedule another vote on funding
the government. “Self-identified progressives
should have thrown a monkey wrench into the
Orwellian machinery,” said Solomon. “Putting up
a fight now would have opened up possibilities
for rolling back key aspects of the surveillance
state.”
Jayapal
disagreed. If the House had not passed the
extension, she said, the GOP-led Senate would
have sent over a clean reauthorization bill
(with no reforms), and she worries moderate
Democrats might have gone along with
it—especially if faced with the alternative of
allowing the provisions to expire altogether.
“You could go through and name any strategy for
me, and I would tell you why it would fail,” she
said.
As for
allowing the Patriot Act to sunset, Jayapal told
me, “There was no scenario in which this thing
was going to expire.” Eighteen years after 9/11,
raising the specter of “the next attack” still
has political potency. “We already heard that
from the Senate,” Jayapal said.
These views represent competing visions for how
progressives should wield power in Congress.
Jayapal’s pragmatic streak has often contrasted
with the more openly confrontational approach of
Ocasio-Cortez or Tlaib. While members of the
Squad have seemed to relish fights with top
Democrats, Jayapal has advocated for sticking to
principles, while finding ways to
work collaboratively
with leadership.
“In my
ideal world, we wouldn’t have the Patriot Act.
Period,” Jayapal said, “but that’s not where we
are. So we’ve got to fix these things, and they
need to be substantive, real changes. That’s
what we’re working on.”
This article was originally published by "New
Republic"
- -
Do you agree or disagree?
Post your comment here