Browse By

Barack Obama on the Patriot Act: 2005 and 2010

December 15, 2005
Senator Barack Obama

Speech on the floor of the Senate,

Opposing a bill to reauthorize the Patriot Act,

Opposing “tossing aside” a bipartisan compromise worked out in the Judiciary Committee by Senate leadership.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, 4 years ago, following the most devastating attack in our history, this Senate passed the USA PATRIOT Act in order to give our Nation’s law enforcement the tools they needed to track down terrorists who plot and lurk within our own borders and all over the world; terrorists who, right now, are looking to exploit weaknesses in our laws and our security to carry out attacks that may be even deadlier than those that took place on September 11.

We all agree we need legislation to make it harder for suspected terrorists to go undetected in this country. And we all agree that we needed to make it harder for them to organize and strategize and get flight licenses and sneak across our borders. Americans everywhere wanted to do that.

Soon after the PATRIOT Act passed, a few years before I even arrived in the Senate, I began hearing concerns from people of every background and political leaning that this law, the very purpose of which was to protect us, was also threatening to violate some of the rights and freedoms we hold most dear; that it does not just provide law enforcement the powers it needed to keep us safe but powers it did not need to invade our privacy without cause or suspicion.

Now, in Washington, this issue has tended to generate into the typical either/or debate: Either we protect our people from terror or we protect our most cherished principles. I suggest this is a false choice. It asks too little of us and it assumes too little about America.

That is why, as it has come to time to reauthorize the USA PATRIOT Act, we have been working in a bipartisan way to do both, to show the American people we can track down terrorists without trampling on our civil liberties, to show the American people that the Federal Government will only issue warrants and execute searches because it needs to do so, not because it can do so.

What we have been trying to achieve under the leadership of a bipartisan group of Senators is some accountability in this process to get answers and see evidence where there is suspicion.

Several weeks ago, these efforts bore fruit. The Judiciary Committee and the Senate managed to pass a piece of bipartisan legislation that, while I cannot say is perfect, was able to address some of the most serious problems in the existing law. Unfortunately, that strong bipartisan legislation has been tossed aside in conference. Instead, we have been forced to consider a piece of rushed legislation that fails to address the concerns of Members of both parties as well as the American people.

This is legislation that puts our own Justice Department above the law. When national security letters are issued, they allow Federal agents to conduct any search on any American, no matter how extensive, how wide ranging, without ever going before a judge to prove the search is necessary. All that is needed is a signoff from a local FBI agent. That is it.

Once a business or a person receives notification they will be searched, they are prohibited from telling anyone about it and they are even prohibited from challenging this automatic gag order in court. Even though judges have already found that similar restrictions violate the first amendment, this conference report disregards the case law and the right to challenge the gag order.

If you do decide to consult an attorney for legal advice, hold on; you will have to tell the FBI you have done so. Think about that: You want to talk to a lawyer about whether your actions are going to be causing you to get into trouble, you have to tell the FBI that you are consulting a lawyer. This is unheard of. There is no such requirement in any other area of the law. I see no reason why it is justified here.

If someone wants to know why their own Government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private document, through the library books you read, the phone calls you have made, the e-mails you have sent, this legislation gives people no rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law. No judge will hear your plea; no jury will hear your case. This is plain wrong. There are Republican Senators as well as Democratic Senators who recognize it is plain wrong.

Giving law enforcement the tools they need to investigate suspicious activities is one thing and it is the right thing. But doing it without any real oversight seriously jeopardizes the rights of all Americans and the ideals America stands for.

Supporters of this conference report have argued we should hold our noses and support this legislation because it is not going to get any better. That is not a good argument. We can do better. We have time to do better. It does not convince me I should support this report. We owe it to the Nation, we owe it to those who fought for our civil liberties, we owe it to the future and our children to make sure we craft the kind of legislation that would make us proud, not legislation we would settle for because we are in a rush. We do not have to settle for a PATRIOT Act that sacrifices our liberties or our safety. We can have one that secures both.

February 27, 2010
President Barack Obama

Signs a bill to reauthorize the Patriot Act,

Without an iota of reform,

Preserving every element of policy to which Senator Barack Obama objected in 2005,

Created after compromise legislation worked out in the Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate were tossed aside by congressional leadership,

At President Barack Obama’s urging.

No presidential statement has been issued.

3 thoughts on “Barack Obama on the Patriot Act: 2005 and 2010”

  1. qs says:

    What do you think the best way if there is a way to pressure SRLC to get Ron Paul as a speaker? CPAC cost 600 per person and 50 for a student to vote, which is no more than SRLC.

    If Paul could get in, he would win.

    1. Jim says:

      This is the SRLC you’re talking about, qs. Give them $3 million and they’ll consider it. Give them $6 million and they’ll do it.

  2. Alex_C says:

    Well he’s not “Bush Lite” after all, he’s “Bush Dark” lol yep you heard it here first…. tip your server …. try the fish…. I’m here Tuesdays and every 3rd Friday….. you folks have been wonderful…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!