Clarification: John Edwards did NOT write The Patriot Act

[mnhtnbb]

There have been some comments posted on threads lately where individuals have asserted that one of the negatives against Edwards is that he authored The Patriot Act. No. Not true. This seems to be a myth circulating the internets.

The draft legislation of the first Patriot Act was written by Assistant
Attorney General for Legal Policy Viet Dinh, who was staff to Attorney General John Ashcroft.

http://www.pbs.org/flashpointsusa/20030715/infocus/topic_03/trans_pat_act.html


<When the legislative proposals were introduced by the Bush administration in the aftermath of September 11th, Attorney General John Ashcroft gave Congress one week in which to pass the bill -- without changes. Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, managed to convince the Justice Department to agree to some changes, and members of the House began to make significant improvements. However, the Attorney General warned that further terrorist acts were imminent, and that Congress could be to blame for such attacks if it failed to pass the bill immediately.

Extensive and hurried negotiation in the Senate resulted in a bipartisan bill, stripped of many of the concessions won by Sen. Leahy. Senator Thomas Daschle, the majority leader, sought unanimous consent to pass the proposal without debate or amendment; Senator Russ Feingold was the only member to object.

Minor changes were made in the House, which passed the bill 357 to 66. The Senate and House versions were quickly reconciled, and the Act was signed into law on October 26, 2001.>


http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/



For the original Patriot Act summary by Project Vote Smart
Note there is only ONE sponsor: Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr.
although I have seen Sen Patrick Leahy referred to as a co-sponsor and author
in some articles.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote...



During early 2003, there were revisions being proposed to The Patriot Act.
These revisions were proposed without input from Congress.

http://foi.missouri.edu/domsecenhanceact/sonofpatriotact.html




During the 2004 election season, Edwards was asked about the Patriot Act and gave these responses:

PATRIOT Act removes liberties that it's supposed to protect
Q: Do you support revision or repeal of the PATRIOT Act?

EDWARDS: I support dramatic revision of the PATRIOT Act. The last thing we should be doing is turning over our privacy, our liberties, our freedom, our constitutional rights to John Ashcroft. First, the very notion that this administration can arrest American citizens on American soil, label them an enemy combatant, put them in prison, keep them there indefinitely-this runs contrary to everything we believe in this country. The notion that they are going to libraries to find out what books people are checking out, going to book stores to find out what books are being purchased. What we have to remember-and I will when I am president-is what it is we are supposed to be fighting for, what it is we are supposed to be protecting. These very liberties, this privacy, these constitutional rights-that's what's at stake in this fight. And we cannot let people like John Ashcroft take them away in an effort to protect ourselves.
Source: Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate Sep 9, 2003

Support the Patriot Act with rigorous review
Q: Would you revise or repeal the Patriot Act?

A: I supported the Patriot Act because it contained provisions needed to strengthen our security, but I also believe this administration has abused its powers in implementing the law. One key provision of the act requires Congress to revisit key provisions of the law. I opposed efforts to repeal that "sunset," and Congress must rigorously review the Patriot Act-as well as any new legislation-to see whether it advances our security and honors our values.
Source: MoveOn.org interview Jun 17, 2003


http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/John_Edwards_Civil_Righ...



And finally, the revisions/renewal of the Patriot Act passed in 2006, when
Edwards was no longer a member of the Senate. Senate Judiciary Committee
Chairman Arlen Specter was responsible for the renewals of the Patriot Act.

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2006/03/70362



John Edwards calls for the resignation of Attorney General
Gonzales and mentions the "abuse of investigative authority under the Patriot Act".

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/3/13/151223/077


I hope this helps to set the record straight.

[spooky3]

1. Very helpful, thank you!

[mnhtnbb]

2. this assertion has shown up in a couple of threads in the last few days

and it makes me wonder if there is some concerted effort from someplace
to identify Edwards with The Patriot Act.

[rgbecker]

3. Feingold for President! n/t

[mnhtnbb]

4. Yeah, he was the lone holdout. How about a Feingold/Boxer ticket?

[LWolf]

5. How about those of us who

don't support the Patriot Act at all, and don't think "provisions needed to strengthen our security" were actually "needed?"

Hindsight is good; foresight is better.

[mnhtnbb]

6. That's why we have a primary! I don't see a perfect candidate in the line-up.

[LWolf]

8. Neither do I, if it comes to that. n/t

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

9. Perfect won't be achieved. Knowledgeable, articulate, understands history and looks out for

the Constitution, which is all politicians' contract with "We, the people...". Edwards seems as if he understands this contract with the citizenry. Richardson, Kucinich, Clinton, Obama seem to have this understanding, as well. Of course, the level of understanding is variable between them and it is non existent on the GOP side. MKJ

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

7. Thank you. K & R.!

:yourock: MKJ

[Adelante]

10. Thank you for the clarification

I've seen the statement many times and am always glad to learn when something is untrue.

[frazzled]

11. I'm afraid you're incorrect, in part

John Edwards did indeed author portions of the Patriot Act, by his own admission:

“The law also contains an initiative I authored that will provide the tools the US needs to crack down on
international money laundering havens and protect the integrity of the US financial system from the influx of
tainted money from abroad."

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:_4gMUJSc8qUJ:www.tcf.org/Publications/HomelandSecurity/candidatetracking.pdf+John+Edwards+authored+portions+of+Patriot+Act&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

But more important, in 2001 Senator Edwards had the chance to vote for the Feingold amendments that would have introduced important safeguards into the Patriot Act. He voted against each of those amendments. From a Washington Post editorial of September 11, 2003 (okay, I know it is the WaPo editorial page, but the fact of Edwards voting against the Feingold amendments remains absolutely true):

"I SUPPORT DRAMATIC revision of the Patriot Act. The last thing we should be doing is turning over our privacy, our liberties, our freedom, our constitutional rights to John Ashcroft." So said North Carolina Sen. John Edwards during the Democratic presidential candidates debate in Baltimore Tuesday night. Surely, then, Mr. Edwards voted against the anti-terrorism law rushed through Congress after Sept. 11? Well, no. When he rose on the Senate floor to speak on the proposal two years ago, he said: "The bill is not perfect, but it is a good bill, it is important for the nation, and I am pleased to support it." Indeed, Mr. Edwards voted against all four amendments offered by Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) to ameliorate some of the civil liberties concerns that Mr. Edwards now seems to feel so keenly -- and that the Democratic audiences he is wooing respond to with such fervor."

I think Edwards needs to stand up again and say "I was wrong" on the Patriot Act. And then we have to ask ourselves how many times someone can have been wrong and still have us trust their sincerity or judgment. That last question, of course, will have many answers, depending on one's perspective. I'm just saying.

[mnhtnbb]

13. I have been through the fine print on your link and do not find

the quote that you attribute to him. I do see, in many interviews,
that he defended his vote because there were certain provisions of The Patriot Act that he favored, including money laundering.

Could you please point me to the page and interview in your link where he says
he authored the money laundering provisions?

Thanks.

[frazzled]

15. Sorry, it's on page 16

of the document, at the top, and is quoted from “Voters Guide to US Senate” Boston Globe, October
29, 2002.

Of course, we all favor security measures that clamp down on money laundering and 'tainted money from abroad'--but no provision regarding those issues can mean anything if the civil liberties safeguards that Senator Edwards rejected at the time are not in place. We've seen how the Bush administration has misused the authority given him in the Patriot Act to counter such financial activities.

[spooky3]

17. it is KERRY's statement, unless I have somehow misread this

above and below the quotes are references to Kerry only. I saw no mention of Edwards in this section.

on edit:

quotes attributed to Edwards are on pp. 1-10.

Kerry's quotes are on pp. 10-20.

Sharpton's quotes begin on p. 20, and so forth.

The quote you said was Edwards' is on p. 16, in the section quoting John Kerry. Therefore, unless this document is in error, the quote appears to be Kerry's, not Edwards'.

[spooky3]

16. the money laundering quote appears on page 16 but it is KERRY'S statement

attributed to him in 2002.

[frazzled]

18. Sorry, you're right on that ... but

I believe Edwards also helped to write provisions, because I remember discussing it back in 2001. I will seek that documentation for you.

What you are not addressing, and I think what is very difficult to explain away, is why he opposed the civil liberties safegaurds offered in the Feingold amendments.

[spooky3]

19. do you have a more recent citation reflecting his current

thinking, that is, after the Senators saw how it was actually implemented?

on edit:

Here is an explanation given in 2003:

the same document you linked to in your response to the OP included this 2003 quote on pp. 5 - 6, after Russert asked him about the WaPo editorial you cited.

MR. RUSSERT: But Senator Feingold tried to amend the Patriot Act dealing with the library provisions, and
voted against it.

SEN. EDWARDS: And here’s why. The problem with what Russ was doing was he was imposing on the
national government, the federal government, a requirement that they meet individual state law requirements.
The way to deal with this issue--it’s a national issue. We’re talking about federal law enforcement. They way
to deal with this issue is to have national legislation. So if we fixed, for example, the provisions that I just
talked about at the national level, that’s the effective response. The response is not to require our national law
enforcement agencies to have to meet procedural requirements that exist in 50 different states.


the exchange then goes on:

MR. RUSSERT: When you go before a Democratic audience and say, “The notion they’re going to libraries to
find out what books are being read” or bookstores, what books are being purchased--the Justice Department
actually was asked whether that had ever been done, and here’s the response. “The Justice Department, which
has repeatedly been accused of encroaching on civil liberties in its war on terrorism, has never actually used a
controversial provision of the act that allows it to seek records from libraries, according to a confidential
memo from Ashcroft... ‘The number of times the provision’s been used to date is zero.’”
So it’s wrong for you to say that that’s being done.

SEN. EDWARDS: No. I think that--well, first of all, I have no way of knowing everything that the Justice
Department is doing. What I do know is that based on testimony they provided to Congress, they have been--
and I think I’m using something close to their language--they have been in touch with libraries and
bookstores around the country. Now, what provision they were using to do that, whether it was the Patriot
Act or something else, I have no way of knowing. But what I do know, is when the United States Justice
Department is contacting libraries and bookstores, it has an enormous chilling effect. And that’s what my
concern is about this provision in the Patriot Act. I still believe it needs to be changed.

MR. RUSSERT: Some Democrats have a different view: “Joe Biden of Delaware called criticism of the Patriot
Act. Dianne Feinstein, (Democrat, California), mounted a strong defense of the Patriot Act, saying she
believes that there is substantial uncertainty and perhaps some ignorance about what this bill actually does do
and how it’s employed. ...I have never had a single abuse of the Patriot Act reported to me.”
Have you?

SEN. EDWARDS: To me, personally? No. But the independent inspector general in the Justice Department
has found 34 credible complaints under the Patriot Act. I think in the first--if I’ve got the timing right, the
first six months of this year, I think it’s a serious issue. I respect Joe Biden and Dianne very much, but I think
we know that there have been abuses, and the inspector general’s findings would show that. (Meet the Press
(10:00 AM ET) – NBC, November 9, 2003, “Senator John Edwards discusses Iraq and the 2004 presidential
election”)

[frazzled]

27. To me, "current" is not really the issue

I am always happy when politicians change their minds when evidence or public opinion make such changes essential: the end results are obviously what we should care about. But in assessing them, I also look for reasons why politicians change their minds: is it conviction or politicking?

I, frankly, remain wary of Edwards's many years worth of support for the war, before he decided (d'oh) it was a mistake. He was a strong supporter of the Patriot Act--even in the face of Feingold's objections--until during his candidacy it became a very unpopular piece of legislation. I don't particularly care what his subsequent views were or are: I'm concerned about his having been gung-ho in the beginning. It's a question of judgment ... and I think that's a fair thing for me to consider.

[spooky3]

30. Yes, but you need to read the quote that the OP and I found in your source

which answers the question that you raised, rather than continue to base your opinion on what may be misinformation. I notice that you said you were going to track down sources for what you believe were Edwards' statements in 2001, and I would be interested in those as well, but you have not yet posted them.

It's fine if you don't care what his later views are; I do want to know about them, so it is a legitimate question for me to ask.

[mnhtnbb]

22. Here's Edwards answer to your question p. 5 of your link

MR. RUSSERT: But Senator Feingold tried to amend the Patriot Act dealing with the library provisions, and voted against it. SEN. EDWARDS: And here’s why. The problem with what Russ was doing was he was imposing on the national government, the federal government, a requirement that they meet individual state law requirements. The way to deal with this issue--it’s a national issue. We’re talking about federal law enforcement. They way to deal with this issue is to have national legislation. So if we fixed, for example, the provisions that I just talked about at the national level, that’s the effective response. The response is not to require our national law enforcement agencies to have to meet procedural requirements that exist in 50 different states.

[spooky3]

24. we must have been scrolling through at the same time!

I've bookmarked your thread as I am sure this issue will be raised again.

[mnhtnbb]

26. It's really funny. I remember being under the impression

some months ago that Edwards had something to do with writing The Patriot Act.
I was disabused of that notion here on DU by someone, and don't remember who.
There's definitely misinformation floating around cyberspace on this one.

[spooky3]

29. one of the best services provided by DU and sites like it

is the amazing info one can get, quickly, here. There are always people who have done excellent work in tracking down the facts and quick challenges to assertions that are not founded.

[mnhtnbb]

12. I also put this up

as a diary on dailykos. Lots of Edwards supporters over there, so if they come up with some links and more info, I'll add them here.

[spooky3]

14. thanks--come on, folks; could we get a 5th K&R?

[mnhtnbb]

20. Found some new information

from the 2004 election. Sen Bob Graham co-authored several provisions
of The Patriot Act.

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/06/14/Worldandnation/Graham_quiet_about_hi.shtml

The story mentions not ONE WORD about Edwards authoring any of it.

[spooky3]

23. great, thanks!

[benny05]

21. Thanks

When Patriot Act was up for renewal, Edwards commented that many of the parts would need to be rewritten, thus he wasn't crazy about it when it was renewed last year.

[citizen snips]

25. Bookmarked

Thanks for the new information.

[AtomicKitten]

28. never came across that allegation

only that he co-sponsored the IWR

[spooky3]

31. oh, it's been posted at DU more than once and may be again.

it's even in this thread, but debunked.

[mnhtnbb]

32. Here it is from yesterday

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3201790&mesg_id=3202061

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3201853&mesg_id=3202540

[AtomicKitten]

33. kinda like a bad game of telephone

[mnhtnbb]

34. LOL. Exactly.

[Hatchling]

35. That phrase (imo) is a meme.

"Edwards authored the Patriot act." Even when debunked it will probably stay around to discredit Edwards in a way similar to Gore's having "invented the internet" phrase. Someone out there is afraid of Edwards, I think.

[jen4clark]

36. Me!

I'm afraid of Edwards. I'm afraid he puts his political future ahead of anything else, and his past voting record shows that. When he speaks before AIPAC he says what they want to hear, when he speaks in front of supporters he says what they want to hear. He's ambitious and smart, but we've got too much trouble to clean up as far as our standing in the world to limp along another 4 years with our president not having the experience or knowledge required on that front. He will depend on advisors and we don't know who those advisors will be until he's in the WH. The fact that he stood with LIEberman in co-sponsorship of the IWR is enough for me to not trust his judgement. Sorry. That's just the way I feel.

[mnhtnbb]

37. See, this is what makes a horse race. I have little respect for Hillary

and I'm very cautious about Obama.

I LOVED Dean in 03 (yes, January 03, long before everyone jumped on his bandwagon).

That's what makes my interest in Edwards so amazing to me. I didn't like him last time around. I think he's evolved. I admire people who are capable of admitting mistakes, growing, changing. I think he's much less the pol
from yesterday and much more true to himself this time around--and I admire him for his stand on the issues so far.

[Catchawave]

38. Of the declared candidates,

who do you support?

[mnhtnbb]

39. Edwards. I admit to having made two small donations to his campaign

and none to any others (although I gave money to Hillary's first Senate campaign and to Obama's Senate campaign when he was supported by DFA).

I would love to see Gore get in the race. As far as I'm concerned,
he was duly elected in 2000 and the Supreme Court stepped in to void
the election, resulting in a bloodless coup d'etat. But I think Gore may have moved on, and doesn't have the fire in the belly for another Presidential race.

So, for now, Edwards.

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. Barack O'Richardson

I wish Obama had some of Richardson's experience under his belt. I'm not completely satisfied with my choices so far, but I'm clear that I don't want Hillary if I have any choice in the matter.

[Catchawave]

41. Thanks Tom and mnh...I was asking jen4clark

...since Edwards frightens her :)

[jen4clark]

42. That's a tough one.

If I HAD to choose from the current candidates I guess it would be Obama. Although in all honesty I'd love to see him spend a few more years doing good things in the Senate, then maybe run in '12.

[The Count]

44. Except that Edwards admits it himself, while the Gore smear was twisting his words

No one said he wrote the whole thing, but he sure was proud of taking part in the writing of the act - which is why he had a press release on his own senate site and a snipet of an interview on his campaign papers. It's HIS WORDS, not swiftboaters'.

[The Count]

43. Then what was this press release doing at his website?

SENATE PASSES STRONG ANTITERRORISM LAW

http://edwards.senate.gov/press/2001/oct26-pr.html
October 26, 2001


WASHINGTON–The Senate on Thursday passed a sweeping antiterrorism bill
that expanded the wiretapping and electronic surveillance authority of
the FBI and imposed stronger penalties for harboring or bankrolling
terrorists.

"This will strengthen our nation's ability to prevent future terrorist
attacks," said Senator John Edwards, who worked on the legislation as a
member of the Judiciary Committee and the Select Committee on
Intelligence.

The Uniting and Strengthening America Act, signed into law on Friday by
President Bush, makes the criminal law tougher on terrorists by making
it a crime to possess a biological agent or toxin in an amount with no
reasonable, peaceful purpose. It also outlaws harboring a terrorist,
and makes it a crime to provide financial support for terrorism.

The legislation brings wiretap laws into the wireless world of 21st
century communications technology. Under old law, the FBI could use a
basic search warrant to access answering machine messages, but agents
needed a different kind of warrant to get voice mail. The new law says
the FBI can use a traditional warrant for both.

Under the law in force before September 11, when highjacked planes
crashed into the Pentagon and World Trade Center, federal courts could
authorize many electronic surveillance warrants only in the place where
the court had jurisdiction. If the target of an investigation lived in
Charlotte, for example, but the subject of the warrant was technically
an Internet Service Provider located in Raleigh, the warrant wouldn't
let agents track the electronic trail of email records or web surfing
activities. The new law lets the court overseeing an investigation
issue valid warrants nationwide.

Another common-sense change gives law enforcement officers and the
intelligence community the ability to share intelligence information
with each other. "We simply cannot prevail in the battle against
terrorism if the right hand of our government has no idea what the left
hand is doing," Senator Edwards said.

The measure also strengthens the powers of law enforcement authorities
that are governed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. "When I
met with FBI agents in Charlotte shortly after September 11, they told
me their number-one priority was to streamline the process for
conducting investigations of foreign agents operating in the United
States. We've done that," Senator Edwards said. "We have made sure the
FBI can focus on investigations, not filling out unnecessary paperwork."

[venable]

45. do you really believe that

the phrase:

Senator John Edwards, who worked on the legislation as a
member of the Judiciary Committee and the Select Committee on
Intelligence.


means he wrote it, as you have claimed here on numerous occasions?

You can't be serious.


It goes to Committee. Members review. That's called 'working on it'.


Is this where you got the fallacy of Edwards writing the Patriot Act?


What say you about the OP?

[The Count]

46. I'm saying that now he's less proud of it than he was at the time of his involvement

I don't know how much role exactly did he play in the making of that law - all I know is that he boasted it - HIMSELF - when it seemed like a good idea.
Sponsoring IWR and working on PA - if you can find me other "achievements" from his time as a senator, I'll be happy to know them.

[mnhtnbb]

48. Here you go. John Edwards on issues

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:nI_CiezSVTwJ:www.ontheissues.org/John_Edwards.htm+John+Edwards+Voting+Record&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a

[venable]

49. impressive list.

I'll be interested if this requested list gets a reply. my guess is it won't.


But I thank you for posting it, anyway.

[mnhtnbb]

50. it's a good source for the other candidates, too

[venable]

52. thanks

I wandered through it. excellent source.

[mnhtnbb]

47. That link is no longer active, probably since Edwards is no longer

a member of the Senate.

But, working on something as a member of a committee is NOT the same thing
as taking authorship for any of the provisions. Edwards has never said
he didn't support the initial Patriot Act or vote for it. He has repeatedly
said that Ashcroft took it too far. He repeatedly has said it needed major revision.

[citizen snips]

51. Please find a different link

that one does not work.