Senator Durbin's response on why he voted for the Patriot Act

[IsItJustMe]

I wrote Dick a letter telling him not to vote for the Patriot Act. For what it's worth, here's his response:


Thank you for contacting me about the need to protect civil liberties in
the midst of the fight against terrorism. I appreciate hearing from you.

I am committed to protecting our civil liberties and preserving our
freedoms during war and peace. We must not forget the painful lessons we
learned in the past when we sacrificed liberty in the name of security.
We should never again repeat past mistakes our government made, including
the internment mandates of World War II and the sweeping investigations of
the McCarthy era.

Congress responded promptly to the attacks on September 11th by crafting
the bipartisan USA PATRIOT Act. I supported this legislation because it
addressed gaps in our laws that have unnecessarily hindered law
enforcement efforts against terrorists and other criminals. The bill
updated wiretap and electronic surveillance laws that had been unchanged
since the era of rotary telephones. This bill also authorized the hiring
of more FBI translators and border agents, as well as assistance to crime
victims and the families of fallen public safety officers.

The PATRIOT Act is not perfect. It has flaws that need correction. To
address these flaws, in 2005 Senator Larry Craig of Idaho and I introduced
the Security and Freedom Ensured (SAFE) Act, S. 737. This bipartisan
legislation sought to protect civil liberties through narrowly crafted
amendments to the PATRIOT Act, while giving law enforcement officials the
powers they need to fight terrorism.

The Senate included many provisions of the SAFE Act in the USA PATRIOT
Improvement and Reauthorization Act, which the Senate passed on July 29,
2005, by unanimous consent. These provisions created safeguards that
would prevent innocent individuals from being subjected to roving wiretaps
and searches of library and medical records. The measure also enhanced
Congressional oversight of the surveillance activities conducted under the
PATRIOT Act.

Unfortunately, when a conference committee of Senators and
Representatives met to reconcile the Senate-approved bill with a version
approved by the House of Representatives, the conference committee
produced a bill that omitted several of the important Senate provisions.
I opposed this unbalanced bill and helped to block its enactment.

On February 9, 2006, a compromise on PATRIOT Act reauthorization was
reached between some SAFE Act supporters and the White House. This
compromise added important civil liberties protections to the PATRIOT Act.
For example, the compromise exempts libraries from records requests known
as National Security Letters, and further ensures that recipients of
National Security Letters do not have to disclose the names of attorneys
they consult.

The final legislation includes additional civil liberties protections
absent from the original PATRIOT Act. These protections include the
establishment of time limits by which the government must inform the
subject of a "sneak and peek" search, a requirement that the government
describe the specific target of a roving wiretap to a court, and
provisions for the public reporting and auditing of the use of National
Security Letters and Section 215 searches. The legislation also creates
four-year sunsets for Section 215 and for roving wiretaps. I sought other
changes as well, and I supported efforts by Senator Feingold and other
Senators to offer further amendments to the legislation.

When the reauthorization legislation came up for a final vote, I
concluded that the compromise language represented a step in the right
direction toward better protecting our civil liberties, and I supported
it. At the same time, I recognize that we need to take more steps in this
direction. I am committed to defending our country's security while
protecting our civil liberties and our principles of freedom and justice.
I will continue to work with Senators from both parties to promote
legislation that will achieve these goals.

Thanks again for your message.

Sincerely,




Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator

[Faygo Kid]

1. Way too wordy, Dick. Anything giving more power to W is wrong.

There is a simple analysis fer ya. I respect Dick Durbin, but sometimes he needs to cut through the bullshit better than he now does.

[IsItJustMe]

4. Yeah, he is usually where I am at on the issues (And he is a great

communicator and orator), but he (along with the rest of the Dems) needs to get on the stick with the lawlessness thats going on.

[roguevalley]

2. amazing. how many congressmen and senators can dance on the

head of a pin? Ask them about their war vote and find out.

[Atman]

3. He coulda saved a lot of time by writing...

"Blah blah blah."

[Panda1]

6. You read my mind

All I saw was "blah blah blah blah" same old platitudes.

[AndyA]

5. So basically, he caved in and gave Bush and the Repugs

what they wanted. All under the pretext that he would work hard to protect our civil liberties and rights after the fact. After he's already given them away, he'll try to get them back.

Sound right?

Sounds like bull to me.

Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

[IsItJustMe]

7. That's the exact quote I sent to him when I told him to vote against it.

[Cleetus]

8. he couldn't shine Feingold's shoes (eom)

[IsItJustMe]

9. amen to that!