Sanders v Leahy?

You don’t see this very often. VPR reports (no link that I can find) that Bernie is lending support to librarians who are frustrated with Senator Leahy and the PATRIOT Act reauthorization that emerged from his Judiciary Committee. The reauthorization makes few changes to the post-9/11 rules allowing federal authorities to go on “fishing expeditions” through citizens’ library records. Interestingly, Sanders was a co-sponsor of Leahy’s original PATRIOT modification bill. It’s an unusual split between our sitting Senators, and Leahy defends the bill as the best he could move to the floor, given Republican intransigence.

Maybe Leahy is correct. Maybe this is the best he could’ve gotten through his committee. If so, what does that say about this Democratic majority? As with the health care issue, Leahy’s laying so much of the blame on Republicans rings quite hollow – especially with conservative Democrat Dianne Feinstein wielding so much power in the Senate Judiciary Committee in these matters. And the library provisions are far from the only problems with the Patriot reauthorization. From The American Prospect:

The bill passed by the Judiciary Committee, which Feingold derisively referred to as the “prosecutor’s committee,” left the senator “scratching his head” as to “how a committee controlled by a wide Democratic margin could support the bill it approved.” Civil-liberties advocates were especially surprised by Sen. Patrick Leahy, who proposed a much milder set of reforms than Feingold but eventually voted for a bill that didn’t have them. As Marcy Wheeler noted, Feinstein and Leahy had derided the 215s and NSLs as “fishing expeditions” back in 2005 during the last reauthorization. But that, after all, was when the GOP was still in charge.

Prospect writer Serwer notes that there are a few positives in the bill, such as changing procedures on military commissions to bring them closer to a civilian judicial standard – but only so far. Commissions are now institutionally enshrined (despite talk of sunset provisions) for the indefinite future, including provisions that now make the US the only other nation besides Rwanda that can try minors for war crimes.

And yes, much – if not all – of the onus on this goes right back to the White House, where the Obama administration has strongly opposed moving towards a pre-Bush civil rights regime on many levels – and whose push on even the bill’s modest reforms, found voice through an unlikely, although strangely appropriate in this case, agent – conservative Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions.

Like so many other Bush-era excesses, Washington Democrats are taking ownership of the federal assault on the 4th amendment as well.

11 thoughts on “Sanders v Leahy?

  1. Senator Leahy seems to have a hard time standing up to the Republicans. Years ago when the Iran/Contra hearings were going on, I stopped him on the street to ask why he wasn’t being tougher on the likes of Ollie North. His reply: ” We have to be careful, we don’t want George Bush to be president.” That was Bush one, GHWB. Democrats got overwhelming majorities and the presidency because the people don’t want these disgusting unconstitutional Bush/Cheney police state policies.

    For years the Dems have milked the we can’t overcome the intransigent Repugs, but now they have no excuses for that but their own blue dog collaboration. Can’t our other Senator find some courage after all these years. Maybe next he’ll be celebrating some security business come to Vermont like he does all the defense (read war) industries he’s so happy about.

  2. It’s not just Sen. Leahy; it’s the whole Dem party that’s a problem. I do think the voters were expecting change, but so far the Dems keep caving to the monied interests and the Neocons as if they have no spine at all.

Comments are closed.