Bobby Byrd is older than dirt, and is being challenged for his senate
seat by younger and more monied candidates in West Virginia.  That he
voted for Alito makes me twitch, but he may have been voting his
constituency ... or more likely, hearkening back to a time when a
president's nominee was passed through because it was his due -- in
other words, civil times.

Jim Jeffords is the Vermont Republican who read the tea leaves early
in Dub's "new America," and switched political allegiance to break the
Republican monopoly [briefly.]  He's the only Independent senator
serving today.  He has announced his retirement this November.

We know who Feingold is ... we will hear more from him.  If he
continues to be the only viable "candidate" willing to speak truth to
power, we will know him much better.

This is a woeful accounting from our legislators -- it proves the
point that we are "ahead of them" in understanding what the public
expects from those who represent them --and illustrates that while the
Congress plays the old game, the public is shifting it's perception to
recognize that there MUST be a new one.

Jude

The Lone Patriot
ROBERT KUTTNER
Robert Kuttner
February 18, 2006
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006...

THE OTHER DAY, editors of the American Prospect interviewed the Senate
Democratic leader, Harry Reid. I pressed Reid about the difficulty
that Democrats were having mounting a unified opposition to President
Bush, even on issues such as the badly bungled Medicare prescription
drug program.

Reid did not respond directly on privatized Medicare drugs, where his
caucus is divided. Instead, the minority leader invoked the bravery of
Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin.

Reid said, ''An example of how people really appreciate your standing
up for what you believe is Russ Feingold, the only person [in the
Senate] to vote against the Patriot Act -- the only person. The
Republicans in 2004 spent tons of money going after him on that one
issue, and it didn't matter because people believed that Russ Feingold
did it because he thought it was the right thing to do."

Indeed, last year, when John Kerry carried Wisconsin by a bare 12,000
votes, Feingold sailed to reelection by more than 330,000 votes. ''I
so admire Russ Feingold," Reid added.

The vote for the so-called Patriot Act, giving the executive branch
unprecedented investigative powers to override traditional liberties,
came in the hysterical wake of 9/11. Congress at least had the wit to
insist that the act be reviewed after five years.

Now, the Patriot Act is about to be extended, with only the most
trivial sops to civil liberties. And guess who is all alone, yet
again?

Senator Russ Feingold.

When Democrats agreed to support an extension making only superficial
changes, Feingold vowed to filibuster. On Thursday, the Senate voted
to end debate. Exactly two other senators voted with Feingold. One was
octogenarian Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who carries a copy of the
Constitution around in his pocket. The other was the flinty former
Republican Jim Jeffords of Vermont, the Senate's lone independent.

Reid, who so admires Feingold's courage, left Feingold all alone yet again.

The Patriot Act is a long-standing wish list on the part of
prosecutors and spymasters who would sacrifice liberties to needless
short-cuts: warrantless wiretaps; ''sneak and peak" searches where the
target doesn't learn of the search; gag orders on recipients who are
compelled to produce confidential medical and business records;
fishing expeditions in libraries; and more mischief that violates the
intent of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable
searches and seizures, making Americans less free but no more secure
against terrorist attack.

But think of all we've learned since 9/11. For starters, we learned
that 9/11 happened mainly because the administration was otherwise
engaged. As the testimony of Richard Clarke and others made clear, the
administration was obsessed with Iraq, and spent Bush's first nine
months ignoring escalating warnings of an imminent Al Qaeda attack.
Having the Patriot Act on the books pre-9/11 wouldn't have helped,
given the administration's failure to connect dots that were known
under existing surveillance law.

Most pointedly, we've learned that Bush feels free to disregard what
Congress permits. The original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
of 1978 gave the government expansive surveillance powers for national
security purposes, but retained higher standards of procedure and
proof for intelligence data used in prosecutions.

The Patriot Act blew a big hole in those protections. But even so,
President Bush, in declaring that he can do whatever he wishes as
commander in chief, including secret and illegal taps of Americans,
doesn't feel constrained by either act. Presumably this war power
could also include mass round-ups, permanent detentions, summary
executions, anything at all.

What better moment to reign in Bush's extra-constitutional power-grab
than when the Patriot Act is up for review? But, no. That might seem
''un-Patriotic" (get it?). As Feingold declared,''If Democrats aren't
going to stand up to an executive who disdains the other branches of
government and doesn't worry about trampling on the rights of innocent
Americans, what do we stand for?"

Good question. As Harry Reid correctly observes, Bush can wave the
bloody shirt of 9/11 all he wants; voters don't punish legislators
such as Feingold who stand up for principle. One such principle,
surely, is that this nation must remain a constitutional democracy.
That notion is also good politics. It has been since 1789.

Feingold's courage needs to be honored, not by celebrating him as a
brave loner, but by following his leadership. Legislators of both
parties need to preserve our liberties, despite ominous claims of
permanent war and unchecked power. If not, God save the Republic. ++

Patriot gamesmanship
2/17/06
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-ed-patriot17fe...

PRESENTED WITH A RARE opportunity to act like a separate branch of
government rather than an arm of the Bush administration, the Senate on
Thursday caved like an overexcited spelunker. Though opposition to the
Patriot Act's appalling intrusions on Americans' privacy had briefly
united liberals with a handful of independent-minded conservatives, the
opportunity to make meaningful revisions is over.

The Senate voted 96 to 3 to limit debate on the revised act, squelching
the effort by Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.) to mount a filibuster. A
vote is slated for March 1. Passage is all but certain in the House.

Four Republican senators who in December had stood up with Democrats to
block an extension of the act now say they're satisfied with a
compromise reached with the administration. It's hard to see why; it's
unclear whether any of the concessions will do anything to protect
Americans from having their personal records scanned by government
agents, regardless of whether those being probed are legitimate
terrorism suspects.

The compromise focuses on three components of the act. The first
involves gag orders on subpoenas. Under the old version, if the FBI
seized personal records (on which websites a person visited, say, or
things he bought on a credit card), the information provider was
forbidden from telling anyone. Under the compromise, subpoenas can be
challenged after one year - far too long after the fact to be
meaningful. Challengers would have to prove that the government was
acting in bad faith, which is extraordinarily difficult. And there is no
need for the government to show a connection between those under
investigation and suspected terrorists or spies, which had been a key
sticking point for the act's opponents in the Senate. Instead, a judge
must simply find grounds that the data are "relevant" to a terrorism
probe. That's a fishing license for the FBI, allowing it to probe
records on the most shallow of pretexts.

Another aspect of the deal allows those under subpoena not to have to
tell the government the names of any lawyer they consult, which is such
a small victory it's hardly worth mentioning.

Finally, the compromise ostensibly prevents the FBI from seizing library
records, at least from libraries performing the "traditional role" of
lending books and providing on-site access to the Internet. But the
language of this section is obscure, and some librarians say it allows
access to the Internet records of any library.

The administration's history of surveillance doesn't inspire confidence
that it will accept a narrow interpretation of this language. Which is
in part why the Senate's acceptance of it is so disappointing. ++

Lonely Defenders of Civil Liberties
The Nation
Thu Feb 16
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060216/cm_thenation/1560694;_ylt=...

In the first of what will be a number of critical votes on renewal of
the Patriot Act, only three members of the U.S. Senate supported Russ
Feingold's effort to prevent enactment of a version of the law favored
by the Bush administration.

Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who cast the sole vote against the
Patriot Act in 2001, has promised to fight at every turn to prevent
renewal of the Patriot Act in a form that does not respect civil
libertries.

On Thursday, he sought to clarify the rights of individuals and
institutions that might be subject to inquiries undder the act. But
only two senators, West Viginia Democrat Robert Byrd and Vermont
Independent Jim Jeffords sided with him.

Some of my colleagues have been arguing, however, that we should go
along with this deal because the conference report, as amended by the
Sununu bill, improves the Patriot Act that we passed four and a half
years ago.

Noting that Republican and Democratic senators who demanded changes in
the Patriot Act late last year are now backing a version of the act
that does not include the changes they sought, Feingold said, "I
oppose the sham legislative process that the Senate is facing here.
And I oppose the flawed deal we are being asked to ratify.
Notwithstanding the improvements achieved in the conference report, we
still have not adequately addressed some of the most significant
problems with the Patriot Act. So I must oppose proceeding to this
bill, which will allow the deal to go forward. I cannot understand how
anyone who opposed the conference report back in December can justify
supporting it now. This deal was a beast two months ago and it hasn't
gotten any better-looking since then."

But the beast had all the Republican and Democratic supporters it
needed Thursday.

And the Constitution had just three friends in the Senate. ++

It is not enough to be compassionate; you must act.
-- The Dalai Lama