| Author |
Message |
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
 Fri Nov 18, 2005 2:30 pm Patriot Act Faces Threat of Filibuster |
|
| Quote: | Legislation reauthorizing the Patriot Act stalled Thursday as lawmakers worked to satisfy senators upset by the elimination of some civil liberties protections.
Negotiators had worked for days to develop an acceptable compromise and presented a draft to senators and representatives late Wednesday.
But senators on the negotiating committee have yet to agree to the compromise, aware that six Republicans and Democrats are threatening to block the final version of the bill when it comes to the full Senate.
"If further changes are not made, we will work to stop this bill from becoming law," the six wrote the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence committees.
The senators are Republicans Larry Craig of Idaho, John Sununu of New Hampshire and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Democrats Dick Durbin of Illinois, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Ken Salazar of Colorado.
Congress is facing two deadlines. Lawmakers want to leave before week's end for Thanksgiving and many parts of the Patriot Act are to expire by year's end if Congress does not renew them.
The Republican-controlled House hoped to approve the compromise on Friday. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., told senators on Thursday that they will have to address the legislation "before we leave."
But Feingold, D-Wis., the only senator to vote against the original Patriot Act in 2001, said there are several different delaying tactics available to stop the bill in the Senate.
Feingold said he had cleared his schedule through Thanksgiving. "And this time I don't think I'll be alone," he said.
Added Murkowski: "We have worked too long and too hard to allow this conference report to eliminate the modest protections for civil liberties that were agreed to unanimously in the Senate."
The six senators were the sponsors of legislation this year that would have tempered the powers of the post-Sept. 11 law that expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers.
They complained that the House-Senate compromise would take back some civil liberty protections on which senators had agreed. They include changing a Senate requirement that the government inform targets of a "sneak and peek" search warrant within seven days to 30 days.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1323799 |
-------signature-------
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Nov 18, 2005 5:51 pm |
|
I don't believe that they should have a filibuster--it should go through. We need it to continue. (But of course, it's still within their rights to have a filibuster on legislation.)
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
oberon
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 106
|
| Sun Nov 20, 2005 1:31 pm |
|
If violating people's rights and the constitution is necessary, I must be missing something. Have you even read the patriot act or heard what it's provisions allow? I hope it fails.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Nov 20, 2005 1:34 pm |
|
I know what the Patriot Act allows for, and I don't think it violates the Fourth Amendment in any way. It's a necessary law.
However, if you want to talk about a 4th amendment violation, talk about Emminent Domain. Now there's a 4th amendment violation. No longer to private citizens have property rights.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Sun Nov 20, 2005 2:19 pm |
|
whats "Emminent Domain"?
-------signature-------
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Nov 20, 2005 2:41 pm |
|
Well, recently, the Supreme Court made a foolish decision that went AGAINST the constitution. It said that cities now have the power to strip a person of their property in order to create things other than schools, etc--without compensation, I believe--like shopping centers, etc. Basically, it was a HORRENDOUS ruling that said that the government can take a way a person's home for whatever reason they want. People on both sides of the aisle greatly oppose this. Link, the Hero of Time did too, and posted an article about it when the ruling was made.
Frankly, it's disgusting how people like a retired WWII veteren, who's grandfather was a slave and father fought in WWI, and who just wanted to spend the last days of his life tending to his garden, are being stripped from their homes for the creation of shopping centers, etc. It's atrocious how the government can shut aside the consititution so easily now and just take away a person's property for whatever reason they want.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Sun Nov 20, 2005 2:52 pm |
|
I think the patriot act needs to be toned back, not increased. I don't think it should go away, because it encompasses SO MUCH, and does a good job at a lot, I just think parts should be cut back.
It's starting to give law enforcement way too much leeway. I don't like it.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Nov 20, 2005 3:01 pm |
|
I don't think it should be increased, but at the same time I don't really think it should be decreased--at least not by much. If you have nothing to hide, then why worry?
I really don't like that my seemingly quite liberal Senator Ken Salazar is involved in this, especially, out of all the senators on that list.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Sun Nov 20, 2005 3:22 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | If you have nothing to hide, then why worry? |
That was my mentallity until the day I got pulled over, and a cop asked to search my car for paintball equipment, since there was some related vandalism in the area. I had "nothing to hide" so I agreed to a voluntary search. In my back seat I had a box full of old electronic equipment which I had just picked up from my grandpas house the day before, since he didn't wat it anymore. In the box was his old race-scanner (used to listen to race teams at NASCAR races, but can also be used illegally to listen to police radios.) As it turns out those are illegal to have in the cab a car.
$150 later, I paid the fine, but the judge in the case agreed to drop the misdemeanor offence off my record because of my cooperation, and lack of any malice in the case.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Nov 20, 2005 3:44 pm |
|
I don't really think that that fits with the Patriot Act, though, which was designed for anti-terrorism measures. (And that's what I meant in terms of the got anything to hide thing. If they're suspecting you of terrorist actions and investigate, and you have nothing to hide, there should be no problem. I'd be fine with it.)
And if they used that as their reasoning, then I'd say that it's misuse of it.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Sun Nov 20, 2005 4:16 pm |
|
No, i'm just using it as a point to say that the old saying "nothing to hide, nothing to fear." is really just a saying to make the opressive look good.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Nov 20, 2005 4:21 pm |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | | No, i'm just using it as a point to say that the old saying "nothing to hide, nothing to fear." is really just a saying to make the opressive look good. |
Well, in the case of accusations of terrorism, I think it's justified and absolutely true.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
