Sen Russ Feingold, leading the charge for a filibuster of the Patriot Act renewal legislation, confirms what we suspected all along: The Sneak and Peek provisions of the Patriot Act are about drugs, not terrorism. A Sneak and Peek, if you are new to the jargon, is where a law enforcement agent enters a dwelling surreptitiously with a warrant, snoops around, and leaves without ever notifying the resident that a search has occurred. There has been a 75% increase in sneak and peeks since 2000.

From his prepared statement on the Patriot Act renewal legislation, read on the Senate floor last night:

Don’t be fooled for a minute into believing that this power is needed to investigate terrorism or espionage. It’s not. Section 213 is a criminal provision that could apply in whatever kind of criminal investigation the government has undertaken. In fact, most sneak and peek warrants are issued for drug investigations. So why do I say that they aren’t needed in terrorism investigations? Because FISA also can apply to those investigations. And FISA search warrants are always executed in secret, and never require notice. If you really don’t want to give notice of a search in a terrorism investigation, you can get a FISA warrant. So any argument that limiting the sneak and peek power as we have proposed will interfere with sensitive terrorism investigations is a red herring.

The House-passed version of the Patriot Act renewal legislation includes the Meth Act. The New York Times reports:

Under the proposal, Sudafed and similar medicines would have to be under lock and key in stores. Buyers would have to sign a sheet and show a driver's license. Purchases would be limited to one box a day and three boxes a month.

This has nothing to do with terrorism. Poor people and the elderly who don't drive won't have driver's licenses to show. Neither will undocumented residents.

Mike Krause of Colorado's Independence Institute reported:

Scott Burns, Deputy Director of the federal Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) recently contradicted the “epidemic” rhetoric, telling a Congressional sub-committee that America’s estimated 1.5 million methamphetamine users make up only 8% of the country’s estimated 19 million drug users.

Check out the New York Time's John Tierney on the meth myth and Reason's Jacob Sullum here and in Speed Bumps at the Pharmacy. Also, Radly Balko explains why restricting cold pills won't curb meth use.

There is no crisis. Cold pills do not equate to terrorism. Tell your senators to just say no to the meth act.

The House of Representatives passed the Patriot Act renewal legislation today. (More here and here.) The Senate is scheduled to vote on Friday. It's a bad, bad bill, filled with new crimes, including drug offenses, death eligible offenses and habeas restrictions, as well as enhanced penalties, many of which have nothing to do with terrorism. Check it out yourself here.

A filibuster is possible.

A Senate Democratic leadership aide said opponents seemed to have from 40 to 46 votes to sustain a filibuster. Republicans said it was uncertain how many votes they would have. "It's going to be close," a Senate Republican aide said.

This may be your last chance. Call your senators now. Tell them that you want them to:

• Vote no cloture and support a filibuster.
• Vote NO on the conference report, should it get to a vote.

Here is a letter by the ACLU explaining why the bill is bad for civil liberties.

Raw Story reports in an exclusive that Sen. Harry Reid will vote against cloture on the Patriot Act renewal legislation.

Reid has told aides he will vote against cloture -- a Senate procedure which requires that 60 senators support a bill being brought before the Senate before it is brought to a final vote. In essence, voting against cloture means supporting a filibuster.

This is a really bad bill, both from a civil liberties and and a criminal justice standpoint.

The full text of the pending Patriot Act renewal legislation, along with the report from the Republicans on the Conference Committee, is available here. [link fixed.]The Table of Contents lists the following provisions specifically impacting Drug Policy.

• Sec. 122. Prohibition of narco-terrorism.
• Sec. 221. Elimination of procedures applicable only to certain Controlled Substances Act cases. (Death Penalty)
• Sec. 410. Uniform procedures for criminal forfeiture.
• TITLE VII--COMBAT METHAMPHETAMINE EPIDEMIC ACT OF 2005 (Sections
  701-756)

Also check out Section 201 which contains the``Terrorist Death Penalty Enhancement Act of 2005''. Sec. 222 adds a new section on indigent defense in death cases (which will now be under 18 USC 3599 in Title 28) instead of 21 USC 848 (q.) Hopefully, they didn't diminish funding.

Background on the use of the Patriot Act to fight the drug war is here. Much of this is the work of Congressman James Sensenbrenner who has become, in my constitutionally protected opinion, a national menace (read about his five years for passing a joint bill and "snitch or go to jail" bills.) As TChris wrote, it's time to Just Say No to Sensenbrenner.

Instapundit has a post on the anti-meth bill that conferees inserted into the Patriot Act compromise legislation agreed upon last week. The meth bill restricts the number of over-the-counter cold pills you can buy. Glenn is 100% correct when he writes:

....the problem with this is that it has nothing to do with terrorism. Putting it in the Patriot Act just reinforces my fears -- present since the beginning -- that this had more to do with finding an excuse to enact bureaucratic wishlists into law than with protecting us from terrorism....this is a dumb idea, it undercuts the entire rationale for the Patriot Act, and it's a reason to be suspicious of the whole renewal enterprise.

Glenn also notes Diane Feinstein is behind the bill. I'm not surprised. She's has as little in common with true Democrats as Joe Lieberman.

TalkLeft has previously criticized North Carolina's use of its "weapons of mass destruction" law to charge a meth lab owner (follow-up here), as well as Oklahoma's law and John Edwards and John Kerry's plan to introduce a federal restriction on buying cold pills.

Bump and Update: AP article on the compromise is here.

A bipartisan group of Senators is also slamming the compromise. From Senators Durbin, Feingold, Salazar, Sununu, Craig and Murkowski (via e-mail):

“We are gravely disappointed that the conference committee made so few changes to the Patriot Act reauthorization package that was circulated before the Thanksgiving recess. As we said then, we cannot support a conference report that does not contain modest but critical improvements, similar to those in the Senate-passed bill, to the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act. We indicated before Thanksgiving that we would oppose a conference report like the one filed in the House today, and we believe many of our colleagues will join us.

Original Post:

From the ACLU this morning (received by e-mail):

The New York Times reports that the White House and Sen. John Mcain are nearing a compromise on the torture amendment.

The White House is said to be ready to yield to McCain on his insistence that the CIA not be exempted from the Amendment. But, McCain is willing to consider the inclusion of a standard that limits liability of CIA officers:

Mr. McCain is balking at agreeing to any kind of exemption for intelligence officials, members of his staff say. Instead, he has offered to include some language, modeled after military standards, under which soldiers can provide a defense if a "reasonable" person could have concluded that he or she was following a lawful order about how to treat prisoners.

by TChris

Kudos to the three Republicans who joined three Democrats today to protest reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Although House and Senate negotiators tentatively agreed to make most provisions of the existing law permanent, the bipartisan group of senators -- Larry Craig, John Sununu, Lisa Murkowski, Dick Durbin, Russ Feingold and Ken Salazar -- threatened to block the bill if it did not restore protections the Senate had included against "unnecessary and intrusive government surveillance."

"We cannot support a conference report that would eliminate the modest protections for civil liberties that were agreed to unanimously in the Senate," they said.

Sen. Bill Frist today said the Senate will need to address the legislation "before we leave" for Thanksgiving vacation at the end of the week. If the Patriot Act isn’t reauthorized before the end of the year, many of its more obnoxious provisions would blissfully expire. Frist, of course, doesn’t want that to happen.

Say hello to Torture Is Not Us by American Progress (hoster of the excellent blog Think Progress), an action site to support the John McCain anti-torture amendment.

One crucial consideration: If the McCain Amendment passes, it must include the CIA. Like the Graham-Levin amendment on detainees, it is part of a larger 2006 military spending package. Bush and Cheney have threatened vetoes if the McCain Amendment passes in a form that excludes the CIA.

I'm not sure I can support the McCain Amendment with the Levin-Graham amendment as part of the package. Particularly, because as I wrote here, no habeas for them could become precedent for no habeas for us, as early as tomorrow, when the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold its second hearing on the dreadfulStreamlined Procedures Act.

The Senate Judiciary Committee today rejected the Jeff Bingaman amendment on habeas relief for detainees by a vote of 44 - 54. The Graham-Levin amendment was approved 84-14.

I just received a copy of the Amendment. My initial take is that while ithe compromise version is a modest improvement on the original Graham amendment, the Graham-Levin substitute would, like the original, eliminate habeas for Guatanamo detainees, overturn the Rasul decision, and also likely prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on the merits of the Hamdan case.

Kudos to Sen. Dick Durbin, whom I'm told, voted for the Bingaman Amendment and against the compromise.

More later.

350 law professors write the Senate Judiciary Committee (pdf)in opposition to Lindsay Graham's detainee habeas stripping amendment to the Pentagon funding bill.

I have not seen a copy of the Levin-Graham compromise. If anyone has it and can send it to me, that would be great. From the accounts I read in the news, it doesn't come close to the Bingaman Amendment - but I want to reserve judgment until I've read it.

Update: Marty Lederman of Balkinization apparently has seen the compromise and raises questions.

Update: I have a copy of the Amendment now, no need to send it.