A few campaigns worth noting: Three

Updated When the TRAITOR Act (aka PATRIOT Act) was stampeded through Congress just 45 days after 9/11, Some Congressfolk with some lingering, out-of-style concern for civil liberties In A Time Of War got included in it a provision that some of the more controversial parts of the bill would sunset (i.e., be undone) at the end of 2005 unless renewed by Congress. Their hope, apparently, was that by that time the panic would have subsided and the provisions could be allowed to quietly die.

Unfortunately, as we know, things have not worked out that way so far. Still, says Thursday's Christian Science Monitor,

[t]ime isn't easing concerns over the enhanced law-enforcement powers of the USA Patriot Act, judging by the debate that's firing up on Capitol Hill over the renewal of its expiring provisions. ...

Last week, Montana became the fifth state to pass a resolution critical of the Act. Since 2001, more than 375 local governments have passed resolutions criticizing the law or declaring "civil liberties safe zones" in a bid to discourage cooperation with the law.

Some of those provision allow for secret "sneak and peek" searches, expanded access to personal information including what books you read or buy, what church you attend, health and financial and educational records, and more - and in many cases make revealing that the information was demanded a criminal offense. All without even a requirement of probable cause to suspect a crime.

As a direct result,

[o]n Wednesday, lawmakers in both the House and Senate introduced bills to rein in the law. The Security and Freedom Enhancement (SAFE) act raises the bar for secret searches and scales back the government's authority to seize personal information without judicial review. Backers range from the ACLU to Gun Owners of America.

The chief sponsors in the Senate - Larry Craig (R-ID), John Sununu (R-NH) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) - pretty much span the ideological range in the body. (Not that it's very wide, but within that context, Craig and Durbin may be about as far apart as you could usually get - and repeat the proof that personal privacy and liberty are an area where left and right cross.)

The ACLU has a page with some additional information about specific changes the SAFE Act would make and a way to email Congress.

The Federation of American Scientists has the Congressional Research Service report on the provisions that sunset on December 31 here in .pdf format. A digest of that report is here.

Footnote: The WHS* are calling the provisions being challenged "vital parts" of the War on Terrorism^{(c)(reg.)(pat. pend.)}. One of the arguments is that, as CSM notes, "few cases of actual abuse of the law have surfaced." But because the most invasive powers under the law operate in secret,

"it has been extremely difficult to uncover information about how the Patriot Act has been used, and even information about whether particular sections have been used at all," wrote Anthony Romero, director of the American Civil Liberties Union, in an April 5 letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) of California, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The DOJ released some numbers on Monday, but they gave rise to some truly odd defenses of the Act.

[W]hen pressed by Senate Judiciary chairman Arlen Specter on whether he would be willing to exclude authority to obtain library and medical records from the law, [Attorney General Al "It was Alberto when pushing me as a Hispanic was politically useful but now it's back to just Al"] Gonzales declined: "It's comparable to a police officer who carries a gun for 15 years and never draws it. Does that mean that for the next five years he should not have that weapon because he had never used it?" he said Tuesday.

That is, the Shrub team is defending the TRAITOR Act against charges that it produces abuses by making claims about how rarely it's used! To make Goner's analogy accurate, we'd have to say that the gun was originally issued because it was insisted, vehemently, that it was absolutely vital in protecting the community, that said officer couldn't do their job without it, and that refusing the gun would make everyone vulnerable to all sorts of crime. Well, if after the 15 years imagined, if that gun hadn't been drawn, then yeah, I'd say that's pretty good evidence that the original contention was bogus.

Considering that the Shrub teams record so far on terrorism prosecutions is "remarkably inconsequential," I'd say it was actually a damn good analogy. Thank you, Mr. Gonzales.

*WHS = White House Sociopaths

Updated to add a link to an article about the record on prosecutions.