Patriot gamesmanship

Los Angeles Times: 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 96-3 to limit debate on the revised act, squelching the effort by Sen. Russell D. Feingold, D-Wisc., to mount a filibuster. A vote is slated for March 1. Passage is all but certain in the House.
Four Republican senators who 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.
Weak compromise
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 Web sites 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
The administration's history of surveillance doesn't inspire confidence that it will accept a narrow interpretation of this language. Which is why the Senate's acceptance of it is so disappointing.