Several key provisions of the Bush-era PATRIOT Act are set to expire at the end of this month: language that gives the FBI authority to use roving wiretaps; a “lone wolf” provision that allows the government to monitor targets who are not connected to an identifiable terrorist group, and most troublingly, a provision allowing the government to access, without judicial review, “any tangible items” such as library records that it deems relevant to an ongoing terrorism investigation.

Potential reforms to these provisions, and the overall bill, have been debated every year but never enacted. Now, with only weeks left in which to act, the Republican House leadership has fast-tracked an extension that doesn’t contain any reforms. In a move announced late Friday, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) scheduled a vote this afternoon on a reform-less extension, which would be effective until December 8, 2011. There will be no opportunity for amendments and very limited debate. OpenCongress explains:

That’s right, the Republicans’ bill to extend a few controversial surveillance programs that are set to expire at the end of this month…has been rushed to the floor calendar without a single committee hearing or a proper mark-up….They are trying to pass it under the suspension of the rules procedure, which means that there will only be 40 minutes of debate allowed and no amendments can be offered.

This, of course, violates (yet again) Republican pledges to have a more open and transparent legislative process. The vote will happen at 2 p.m.

In the Senate, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has put forth a bill that would extend these provisions, but with some very basic safeguards — for example, “when library or bookseller records are sought via a Section 215 order for business records, a statement of specific and articulable facts showing relevance to an authorized investigation must be produced.” The Department of Justice has already agreed to enact most of these reforms voluntarily. Leahy’s bill would also sunset the use of National Security Letters, a dangerous practice that “radically expanded the FBI’s authority to demand personal customer records from Internet Service Providers, financial institutions and credit companies without prior court approval.” Government watchdogs have already uncovered widespread abuse of this provision.

Unfortunately, according to Julian Sanchez, Senate Democrats are prepared to fast-track a bill by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) that extends these provisions without any reforms, under a rule that allows them to bypass the committee process. The White House announced in a statement today that it also endorses this approach.

With leadership in both parties, along with the White House, favoring a reform-less extension, opposition is coming from an unusual place: conservative Tea Party members of Congress. Last week, Rep. Dennis Kucinich challenged Tea Partiers to adhere to their professed desire for limited government, and it appears some might. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) says he’s not sure how he will vote today, and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) is warning against any future efforts to make such extensions permanent. “There need to be sunsets on the bill after that in order to have adequate accountability and oversight,” he said. “Until sunsets come up, it is often difficult to get the answers we need to do necessary oversight to avoid abuses.”

This past Saturday, Alabama state Sen. Scott Beason (R) gave a speech at the Cullman County Republican Party breakfast on the topic of immigration and how he believes lawmakers can resolve the issue. One solution Beason provided was suggesting that lawmakers “empty the clip” and stop undocumented immigrants from destroying the U.S. economy. The Cullman Times reports:

“The reality is that if you allow illegal immigration to continue in your area you will destroy yourself eventually,” said Beason. “If you don’t believe illegal immigration will destroy a community go and check out parts of Alabama around Arab and Albertville.” [...]

“The illegals are always praised for sending money back home, ‘they are so great’, ‘such family people’,” he [Beason] said. “But why is it right for them to send billions of dollars home, before they even try to buy some health insurance here that you and I pay for— it doesn’t make them sound so wonderful does it? They’re basically saying, no we’re going to keep the money and you’re going to pay for what I need.”

Beason ended his speech by advising Republicans to “empty the clip, and do what has to be done”.

Beason now insists that his comments were taken out of context and that he was using an analogy and not urging violence. “I did say that but it was completely taken out of context,” he stated. “Look, I’ll take my beatings when I mess up. But no way was I urging anyone to do harm to Hispanics or illegal immigrants. I would never do that.”

Yet, his explanation doesn’t really justify his alarming statements. “I began telling the story about a family visiting a big city when some guy with a knife or gun jumps out from behind some bushes and comes at them,” Beason told The Birmingham News. “The story talks about how a Democrat handles the situation, I think I said the Democrat tells the guy he’ll put together a charity basketball league or something to raise money to help him. The second family, that father has a gun but takes only one shot. The third family, and that father also has a gun, but he empties the clip. He solves the problem.”

Alabama Republican Party Chairman Mike Hubbard defended Beason, stating, “Given what happened recently in Arizona, the media is especially sensitive to how political speech is phrased…But they must not become so sensitive that they stifle legitimate political debate.” Democratic Party Chairman Mark Kennedy denounced the remarks. “Sen. Beason’s remarks in Cullman were unnecessary and dangerous, particularly in light of the recent tragic shootings in Tucson,” Kennedy said in a statement.

The thing is, Beason’s comments aren’t just troubling in light of the tragedy that unfolded in Arizona last month. Throughout the country, a number of citizens have resorted to violence as they’ve taken what they perceive as an immigration problem into their own hands. First, there were the string of hate crimes in Long Island which ultimately led to the fatal beating of an Ecuadorian immigrant. In Pennsylvania, a Mexican immigrant was also beaten to death by teenagers yelling racial slurs. In June 2009 a leader of the Minuteman American Defense and two of her associates allegedly burst into a Latino family’s home, killing a nine-year-old girl and her father. Neo-nazis who have “declared war on ‘narco-terrorists’ and keeping an eye for illegal immigrants” are parading through the Arizona desert armed with assault rifles, body armor, and gas masks.

Ultimately, Beason’s remarks don’t contribute anything to the “legitimate political debate.” They do, however, add to the hatred and vitriol which makes it hard for politicians who are serious about working on the immigration issue to propose rational solutions.

The US seems to be putting “stability ahead of democracy” in its dealings with Egypt on the assumption that a slow transition or even the survival of the existing regime would be more stabilizing than the alternative. But as is evident in Egypt right now, the status quo is not very stabilizing. If it were, hundreds of thousands of people wouldn’t be out on the street today. In fact, should the new Vice President Omar Suleiman or President Hosni Mubarak succeed in outlasting the protests and possibly killing hopes of a transition, the outcome could in fact likely be very destabilizing.

It seems pretty clear that the Egyptian regime’s current strategy is to attempt to claim reform is happening in the hope that this will sap the protersters of energy and support as life in Egypt begins to returns to normal. Having outlasted the protesters, and with the protesters no longer out in the streets, Mubarak could quite plausibly refuse to leave office or simply initiate an “orderly transition” to a new autocrat such as Omar Suleiman.

While many would suggest that this outcome would suit the US just fine, that strikes as a very naïve reading of the situation. The failure of the peaceful protest movement could plausibly result in a radicalization of some of the opposition, prompting the more desperate and radical members to turn to violence.

The most committed protesters have already endured considerable violence during the clashes with pro-government forces. They have organized themselves in response, showing impressive discipline and commitment. Many also now believe that should Mubarak, or the regime survive, they will likely be arrested. It is therefore all or nothing for some of these protesters – a fear likely compounded by Suleiman insistence in keeping the “emergency law” in place. Should Mubarak and the regime hang on, one could therefore plausibly imagine a very small portion of the opposition turning to violence – bombings, assassination attempts, coordinated attacks, etc.

Even if violence doesn’t emerge, we are, at the very least, laying the groundwork for decades of continued anti-Americanism in the region. The protests in Egypt were looked to with hope around the region and should they fail the United States will likely be viewed as culpable in the killing the prospect of democracy in Egypt. This would be another huge blow to public perception of the US in the Middle East and would all but kill the credibility of an Administration and a President who less than two years ago went to Cairo to call for reform.

Currently, backing Suleiman, staying agnostic on the role of Mubarak, and advocating a go slow approach for the transition is predictably leading to blow back against the United States in the “Arab Street”:

The result has been to feed a perception, on the streets of Cairo and elsewhere, that the United States, for now at least, is putting stability ahead of democratic ideals, and leaving hopes of nurturing peaceful, gradual change in large part in the hands of Egyptian officials — starting with Mr. Suleiman — who have every reason to slow the process.

The problem for the United States is that the regime’s survival in Egypt would reinforce the central gist of Al Qaeda’s central claim against the West: that change is impossible in the Middle East because the United States will prevent it. Therefore, Al Qaeda insists that to create change in the region they must strike first at the US and the West to get them to stop interfering in the Middle East. In other words, if we are seen as culpable in killing the protests, we are playing directly into Al Qaeda’s narrative.

Maybe the negative blowback of the regime’s survival will be minimal, but it seems foolish to assume that the current unstable status quo, will be less destabilizing than a prompt transition to “real democracy.”