| Author |
Message |
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
 Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:27 pm House Passes Patriot Act - Faces Senate |
|
| Quote: |
House Passes Patriot Act
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
WASHINGTON � The House easily approved renewing a modified USA Patriot Act on Wednesday, but with the bill facing a Senate filibuster, its Republican leader began talks with the White House on instead extending the current law unchanged for a year.
The House voted 251-174 to approve a House-Senate compromise that would modify and make permanent most of the Patriot Act's 16 expiring provisions. But a group of Republican and Democratic senators is lobbying for more time to add additional safeguards on the law.
President Bush urged against any delay in Senate action. "The Patriot Act is essential to fighting the war on terror and preventing our enemies from striking America again," he said in a statement. "In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment."
Facing a threatened filibuster, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., was talking with White House officials about a one-year extension of the current law without any changes, a senior Republican aide said.
Frist's action indicated new trouble for making most of the 2001 law's provisions permanent, a priority for both the Bush administration and Republican leaders on Capitol Hill before Congress adjourns for the year.
Congress overwhelmingly passed the Patriot Act after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The law expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers against suspected terrorists, their associates and financiers.
Republicans say the country will be left vulnerable if the Patriot Act is not renewed.
"Renewing the Patriot Act before it expires in December is literally a matter of life and death," said Rep. Ric Keller, R-Fla.
But the bill's opponents say the original Patriot Act was rushed into law, and Congress should take more time now to make sure that the rights of innocent Americans are safeguarded before making 14 of the 16 expiring provisions permanent.
They are pushing a temporary extension of the law so they can lobby for additional safeguards in the law. "If we enact the bill as written, a little bit of the liberty tree will have died," said Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass.
While the bill's opponents did not have enough votes in the House, a group of Republican and Democratic senators is banding together in the Senate to block the House-Senate compromise.
Senate vote-counters trying to tally support and opposition for an agreement that would revise the 2001 anti-terror law were unable to precisely gauge its prospects Wednesday.
If the agreement to renew the act fails a crucial test of support, Frist was preparing to bring up his own legislation to extend the current Patriot Act for a year, according to a senior Frist aide who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision had not yet been made.
That would mark a victory for lawmakers of both parties who were lining up against the compromise.
They argued that the House-Senate accord would allow government too much power to investigate people's private transactions. Congress needs more time to add privacy protections, these lawmakers say.
The Bush administration and House leaders say the country is safer with the Patriot Act renewed.
"The consequence of letting the Patriot Act expire will be a boon to terrorists, because they will be able to exploit all of the vulnerabilities of our legal system that allowed them to pull 9/11 off," said Judiciary chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. "And as a result, I don't think that's the responsible thing to do."
About a dozen Republicans and Democrats in the Senate are complaining that the Patriot Act gives government too much power to investigate people's private transactions, including bank, library, medical and computer records. They also say it doesn't place enough limits on the FBI's use of National Security Letters, which compel third parties to produce those documents during terrorism investigations.
"At a time when so much of the world questions our commitment to our own values, I urge my colleagues to show the American people and the world that we will defend our country but we will do so in a way that protect those rights that make it worth defending," said Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., who called on lawmakers to reject the House-Senate compromise.
For the White House and congressional Republicans, renewing the centerpiece of President Bush's war on terror is a top priority with the midterm elections coming up next year.
Bush devoted his Saturday radio address to the subject and Frist added his voice Sunday.
The vast majority of the Patriot Act would remain in force even if the House-Senate agreement to renew the expiring provisions fails. The reauthorization language would extend for four years two of the Patriot Act's most controversial provisions � authorizing roving wiretaps and permitting secret warrants for books, records and other items from businesses, hospitals and organizations such as libraries.
Those provisions would expire in four years unless Congress acted on them again.
Included in the House-Senate accord is a measure to restrict and record the sale of products necessary to cook methamphetamine, including ingredients in many cold medicines. If passed, the act would also give $99 million a year for five years to arrest and prosecute dealers and traffickers, plus $20 million for two years to help children affected by the meth trade.
"Doing so will send a strong signal that Congress is serious about fighting the scourge of meth," said Rep. Mark Kennedy, R-Minn.
SEARCH
Click here for FOX News RSS Feeds
Advertise on FOX News Channel, FOXNews.com and FOX News Radio
Jobs at FOX News Channel.
Internships at FOX News Channel (Accepting Fall Applications Now).
Terms of use. Privacy Statement. For FOXNews.com comments write to
[email protected]; For FOX News Channel comments write to
[email protected]
� Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright � 2005 ComStock, Inc.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright 2005 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
All market data delayed 20 minutes.
|
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Dec 14, 2005 10:28 pm |
|
I hope the Senate passes this. They're the problem, always, in important legislation that gets passed by the house. It's the Senate that really holds up the legislation more than anything.
-------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
|
| Thu Dec 15, 2005 12:04 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | I hope the Senate passes this. They're the problem, always, in important legislation that gets passed by the house. It's the Senate that really holds up the legislation more than anything. |
Hopefully the senate will do it's best.  They're not going to pass something so vile very haphazardly. Down with the patriot act and its violations of the Constitution.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:09 pm |
|
It's not, and they approved it the first time. I hope they do the second time.
-------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
|
| Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:15 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | It's not, and they approved it the first time. I hope they do the second time. |
For what reason do you hope they approve it again? Do you undervalue your rights?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:32 pm |
|
| oberon wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | It's not, and they approved it the first time. I hope they do the second time. |
For what reason do you hope they approve it again? Do you undervalue your rights? |
Hey, it stopped the Brooklen(sp?) Bridge from being bombed. As long as it's not misused--which it hasn't been--I want it there, so that we can prevent further terrorist attacks. Have we had an attack since 9/11? No. Why? Because of this administration's policies.
Besides, when it comes to terrorism, if you have nothing to hide, what's the big deal? Nothing.
Now, if they found, say, drugs in a raid, and yet you were found not to have done anything with terrorism, and they went after you for that in a way they wouldn't be able to normally, then I think that's misuse and isn't right. Otherwise, when it comes to terrorism...
It's not stripping away any rights. As long as each case is done properly, and it's not misused, I see nothing wrong with it. If there are misuses, then those carrying them out should be in trouble.
-------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
|
| Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:36 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | oberon wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | It's not, and they approved it the first time. I hope they do the second time. |
For what reason do you hope they approve it again? Do you undervalue your rights? |
Hey, it stopped the Brooklen(sp?) Bridge from being bombed. As long as it's not misused--which it hasn't been--I want it there, so that we can prevent further terrorist attacks. Have we had an attack since 9/11? No. Why? Because of this administration's policies.
Besides, when it comes to terrorism, if you have nothing to hide, what's the big deal? Nothing.
Now, if they found, say, drugs in a raid, and yet you were found not to have done anything with terrorism, and they went after you for that in a way they wouldn't be able to normally, then I think that's misuse and isn't right. Otherwise, when it comes to terrorism...
It's not stripping away any rights. As long as each case is done properly, and it's not misused, I see nothing wrong with it. If there are misuses, then those carrying them out should be in trouble. |
Say you're suspected of terrorism, they arrest you, you're held for a year before you get any word and you were innocent the entire time. Under the patriot act, that is the potential for anyone who is "suspect". Does that sound appealing?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:42 pm |
|
I would be fine with that, in this day and age. I would fight to prove my innocence, though, and would be angry, but I would accept it.
But it's not QUITE that, exactly, and most of those cases are not under the Patriot Act, but those found in combat in Afganhistan or Iraq. And I have yet to hear of a tale in which an innocent was held under the Patriot Act. Virtually all the cases are proven guilty--but there haven't been many cases even. It's hardly been used.
-------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
|
| Fri Dec 16, 2005 1:42 pm |
|
| Quote: | Senate Rejects Extension of Patriot Act
WASHINGTON - The Senate on Friday refused to reauthorize major portions of the USA Patriot Act after critics complained they infringed too much on Americans' privacy and liberty, dealing a huge defeat to the Bush administration and Republican leaders.
In a crucial vote early Friday, the bill's Senate supporters were not able to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a threatened filibuster by Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and their allies. The final vote was 52-47.
President Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Republicans congressional leaders had lobbied fiercely to make most of the expiring Patriot Act provisions permanent.
They also supported new safeguards and expiration dates to the act's two most controversial parts: authorization for roving wiretaps, which allow investigators to monitor multiple devices to keep a target from evading detection by switching phones or computers; and secret warrants for books, records and other items from businesses, hospitals and organizations such as libraries.
Feingold, Craig and other critics said those efforts weren't enough, and have called for the law to be extended in its present form so they can continue to try and add more civil liberties safeguards. But Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert have said they won't accept a short-term extension of the law.
If a compromise is not reached, the 16 Patriot Act provisions expire on Dec. 31.
Five Republicans voted against the reauthorization: Chuch Hagel of Nebraska, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, John Sununu of New Hampshire, Craig and Frist. Two Democrats voted to extend the provisions: Sens. Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.
Frist, R-Tenn., changed his vote at the last moment after seeing the critics would win. He decided to vote with the prevailing side so he could call for a new vote at any time. He immediately objected to an offer of a short term extension from Democrats, saying the House won't approve it and the president won't sign it.
"We have more to fear from terrorism than we do from this Patriot Act," Frist warned.
If the Patriot Act provisions expire, Republicans say they will place the blame on Democrats in next year's midterm elections. "In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without these vital tools for a single moment," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "The time for Democrats to stop standing in the way has come."
But the Patriot Act's critics got a boost from a New York Times report saying Bush authorized the National Security Agency to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds � perhaps thousands � of people inside the United States. Previously, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders for such investigations.
"I don't want to hear again from the attorney general or anyone on this floor that this government has shown it can be trusted to use the power we give it with restraint and care," said Feingold, the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001.
"It is time to have some checks and balances in this country," shouted Sen. Patrick Leahy, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. "We are more American for doing that."
Most of the Patriot Act � which expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers against suspected terrorists, their associates and financiers � was made permanent when Congress overwhelmingly passed it after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington. Making the rest of it permanent was a priority for both the Bush administration and Republican leaders on Capitol Hill before Congress adjourns for the year.
The House on Wednesday passed a House-Senate compromise bill to renew the expiring portions of the Patriot Act that supporters say added significant safeguards to the law. Its Senate supporters say that compromise is the only thing that has a chance to pass Congress before 2006.
"This is a defining moment. There are no more compromises to be made, no more extensions of time. The bill is what it is," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
The bill's opponents say the original act was rushed into law, and Congress should take more time now to make sure the rights of innocent Americans are safeguarded before making the expiring provisions permanent.
"Those that would give up essential liberties in pursuit in a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security," said Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H. They suggested a short extension so negotiations could continue, but the Senate scrapped a Democratic-led effort to renew the USA Patriot Act for just three months before the vote began.
Copyright � 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051216/ap_on_go_co/patriot_act |
-------signature-------
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Dec 16, 2005 5:29 pm |
|
I entirely disagree with the Senate's decision. They're always getting in the way of good legislation passed by the house...
Well, I hope that they at least extend SOME of the Patriot Act. And I'm confident that they will eventually at least do that, so I'm positive.
And can you show me a single instance in which the Patriot Act has been abused--one instance?
And also, lastly, the reason that the government passed the act in the first place is because taking the time to get a warrant and go through that entire process is long--often too long to stop an attack from happening. And not only that, but it's difficult to prove that they are a terrorist without any hard evidence. But what if we have to stop them, because there is the very likely chance that there might be an attack organized, carried out, or etc. by the captive? That's why the Patriot Act is important--because even though there is a chance that innocents might become wrapped up, we can be able to stop an attack from occurring. If we had something like the Patriot Act before 9/11, it very well might not have happened. But of course Clinton did nothing about terrorism.
-------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
|
| Sat Dec 17, 2005 11:09 pm |
|
| Quote: | | And can you show me a single instance in which the Patriot Act has been abused--one instance? |
The patriot act is abuse. It's hard to define a definition, huh? I can give you an instance.
| The Daily Texan wrote: | PHILADELPHIA - In the two years since law enforcement agencies gained fresh powers to help them track down and punish terrorists, police and prosecutors have increasingly turned the force of the new laws not on al-Qaida cells but on people charged with common crimes.
The Justice Department said it has used authority given to it by the PATRIOT Act to crack down on currency smugglers and seize money hidden overseas by alleged bookies, con artists and drug dealers.
Federal prosecutors used the act in June to file a charge of "terrorism using a weapon of mass destruction" against a California man after a pipe bomb exploded in his lap, wounding him as he sat in his car.
A North Carolina county prosecutor charged a man accused of running a methamphetamine lab with breaking a new state law barring the manufacture of chemical weapons. If convicted, Martin Dwayne Miller could get 12 years to life in prison for a crime that usually brings about six months.
Prosecutor Jerry Wilson says he isn't abusing the law, which defines chemical weapons of mass destruction as "any substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury" and contains toxic chemicals.
Civil liberties and legal defense groups are bothered by the string of cases, and say the government soon will be routinely using harsh anti-terrorism laws against run-of-the-mill lawbreakers.
"Within six months of passing the PATRIOT Act, the Justice Department was conducting seminars on how to stretch the new wiretapping provisions to extend them beyond terror cases," said Dan Dodson, a spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. "They say they want the PATRIOT Act to fight terrorism. Then, within six months, they are teaching their people how to use it on ordinary citizens."
Prosecutors aren't apologizing.
Attorney General John Ashcroft completed a 16-city tour this week defending the act as key to preventing a second catastrophic terrorist attack. Federal prosecutors have brought more than 250 criminal charges under the law, with more than 130 convictions or guilty pleas.
The law, passed two months after the Sept. 11 attacks, erased many restrictions that had barred the government from spying on its citizens, granting agents new powers to use wiretaps, conduct electronic and computer eavesdropping and access private financial data.
Stefan Cassella, deputy chief for legal policy for the Justice Department's asset forfeiture and money laundering section, said that while the PATRIOT Act's primary focus was on terrorism, lawmakers were aware it contained provisions that had been on prosecutors' wish lists for years and would be used in a wide variety of cases.
In one case this year, investigators used a provision of the PATRIOT Act to recover $4.5 million from a group of telemarketers accused of tricking elderly U.S. citizens into thinking they had won the Canadian lottery. Prosecutors said the defendants told victims they would receive their prize as soon as they paid thousands of dollars in income tax on their winnings.
Before the anti-terrorism act, U.S. officials would have had to use international treaties and appeal for help from foreign governments to retrieve the cash, deposited in banks in Jordan and Israel. Now, they simply seized it from assets held by those banks in the United States.
"These are appropriate uses of the statute," Cassella said. "If we can use the statute to get money back for victims, we are going to do it."
The complaint that anti-terrorism legislation is being used to go after people who aren't terrorists is just the latest in a string of criticisms.
More than 150 local governments have passed resolutions opposing the law as an overly broad threat to constitutional rights. |
There you go. Good going Senate! 
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Dec 17, 2005 11:37 pm |
|
Well, they found loopholes. It wasn't abused, per se, nor was it right to use it against methamphetamines and stuff. I will submit to you that the Patriot Act should be more clearly defined than it is, in terms of when it can be used, etc. Then that can make it focus more on terrorism, and that's it.
Therefore, I think it should be amended with more specific definitions and passed again.
But we can't forget the successes of the Patriot Act in thwarting terrorist attacks. I'll list a few a little later.
-------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 Dec 18, 2005 1:44 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | Well, they found loopholes. It wasn't abused, per se, nor was it right to use it against methamphetamines and stuff. I will submit to you that the Patriot Act should be more clearly defined than it is, in terms of when it can be used, etc. Then that can make it focus more on terrorism, and that's it.
Therefore, I think it should be amended with more specific definitions and passed again.
But we can't forget the successes of the Patriot Act in thwarting terrorist attacks. I'll list a few a little later. |
If the act was created for the specifically for the purpose of halting terrorists, don't you think that using it otherwise falls under the category of abuse? Loopholes is just a nicer word for it. And you know, it's not like there are hundreds of terrorists running around the US, waiting to attack. Paranoia can interfere with common sense sometimes. The number of people whose rights are being cast aside to make way for this bogus act outweigh the potential for another terrorist attack. Plus, an act created in part by a lying, cheating, fool, doesn't seem like such a good thing to me. The act has to be refined greatly and the definition for chemical/weapons of mass destruction has to be identified before it will be acceptable. Now, it's rubbish.
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Sun Dec 18, 2005 2:15 pm |
|
I agree wholeheartedly with the senate on rejecting this. The patriot act is entirely unconstitutional. I will not sacrafice my freedom for temporary safety. However, it doesn't matter what any of us think when it all boils down to it, they make the laws, not us. Sure they're supposed to represent what we think, but an individual opinion simply isn't enough.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:36 pm |
|
| oberon wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | Well, they found loopholes. It wasn't abused, per se, nor was it right to use it against methamphetamines and stuff. I will submit to you that the Patriot Act should be more clearly defined than it is, in terms of when it can be used, etc. Then that can make it focus more on terrorism, and that's it.
Therefore, I think it should be amended with more specific definitions and passed again.
But we can't forget the successes of the Patriot Act in thwarting terrorist attacks. I'll list a few a little later. |
If the act was created for the specifically for the purpose of halting terrorists, don't you think that using it otherwise falls under the category of abuse? Loopholes is just a nicer word for it. And you know, it's not like there are hundreds of terrorists running around the US, waiting to attack. Paranoia can interfere with common sense sometimes. The number of people whose rights are being cast aside to make way for this bogus act outweigh the potential for another terrorist attack. Plus, an act created in part by a lying, cheating, fool, doesn't seem like such a good thing to me. The act has to be refined greatly and the definition for chemical/weapons of mass destruction has to be identified before it will be acceptable. Now, it's rubbish. |
I agree with you in terms of clearer definitions. But I don't think that the intent of the Patriot Act was anything of abuse. It was necessary in
But I think you greatly underestimate the terrorists, though. It's not paranoia that myself or others have. It's LOGIC and FACT. There are several terror cells in the US, and several attempts have been thwarted DUE TO THE PATRIOT ACT.
To name a few, presented by the White House:
-West Coast Hijack plot
-East Coast Hijack plot
-Jose Pedia plot
-British Urban Bombing plot
-The Heathrow(sp?) Airport plot
Those were prevented by the Patriot Act, and now it's gone. Now, at the start of next year, we won't have it anymore. No longer can we prevent attacks through such a necessary system.
I think, personally, that I happen to agree with those who called for a short extension and reworking during that time, so that we can make more clear definitions, etc. I was rather dissapointed that the White House didn't accept that, as to prefer to not get it passed in any form so much that they didn't even accept a short extension and changes during the extension.
You underestimate the terrorists, for whatever reason you have. They are a much bigger threat than you will admit. 9/11, anyone? Do you REALLY want that to happen again?
I've almost never heard someone essentially say that the terrorists aren't a threat before. You can spin it all you want, but that's what I see you saying, but I'll digress there, because that's involved in a question I present to you in the other topic, which will be posted soon.
So, yeah, everything else I want to say is in the other topic. Both of them relate to the same thing, so I'm posting it there and am going to focus my efforts there.
-------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
