LEADING BUSINESS NEWSPAPER COMES OUT
AGAINST PATRIOT ACT REAUTHORIZATION:

One of the world's leading business newspapers the FINANCIAL TIMES came out solidly against reauthorization of the patriot act today. In "Extraordinary claim of executive power, Congress must re-assert its authority over war on terror," an unsigned "flag" editorial on page 12 representing the collective view of the newspaper, the Financial Times argued: "[it] is not a question of what powers US law enforcement may need...It is a question of who should authorize any necessary curtailment of liberties established in the constitution.

"In declining to seek authority from Congress and ignoring the courts, the White House made an extraordinary claim of executive prerogative...If sustained, this would fundamentally alter the common understanding of the nature of the separation of powers in the US political system."

The fact that a big business newspaper of the Financial Times stature has come out against patriot act renewal on the grounds of abuse of power by the president [violation of the doctrine of separation of powers] should make it easier for senators of both parties to resist the White House.

FISA Court Judge Quits:

Today's Washington Post revealed yet, another protest of abuse of power came yesterday when a FISA court judge resigned from the FISA court apparently as a protest of presidential abuses. [Washington Post, December 21, 2005, Page A-1]

It is therefore surprising as well as worrying that:

Senate Judiciary Chair Specter says a deal may be near:

Senator Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a powerful figure in this fight told AP today that a deal may be near to pass the conference report as written in return for a promise by him as Senate Judiciary Committee chair to take up issues within the bill after January.

In "Sen. Specter Poised to Revive Patriot Act" by Jesse J. Holland for AP published online around 3:00 p.m. ET, the Senator is quoted as saying: "I think there's a fairly good chance at this moment [of a deal to close debate on the patriot act reauthorization conference report and bring it to a final vote]..[prospects] are brighter in the last half hour than they've been for six days." And what did Senator Specter offer senators in his efforts to make a deal? He offered "my commitment to take up issues that they are so worried about. We'd have hearings early next year and consider the amendments, no commitment as to passage, but give consideration to that so we don't have the Patriot Act lapse, since it's important to America."

Is this a good deal? No, no, no:

The deal Senator Specter is offering doesn't guarantee passage nor even that any legislation crafted by the Senate judiciary committee would ever reach the floor of the Senate let alone the floors of both the House and the Senate. Meanwhile some extremely dangerous to civil liberties provisions would become permanent law and, in essence, the president would be rewarded for his flagrant abuse of power in ordering secret wiretaps without court approval or ratification or supervision.

Tell both of your senators:

Just say no to Specter, it's a bad deal. It's bad precedent to reward the president for breaking the law. Make a truly temporary deal and write a better bill next year.