Lawmakers Warn That Patriot Act Will Not Be Renewed Without Changes

Status
Not open for further replies.

TheeBadOne

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2002
Messages
2,217
Location
Nemo sine vitio est
Assoc Press 10-16-03

A key Republican senator said that Congress must modify parts of the USA Patriot Act or see the law die in two years.

Changes must be made to the law if it is to be renewed in 2005, said GOP Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"I think we are building that kind of base for it in the Senate," Craig said. "Many of these, if not all of these, would have to be incorporated."

The Patriot Act allows authorities to go before a three-judge panel and get permission to secretly search the homes of suspected terrorists. It also allows a court to authorize subpoenas of library loan records and bookstore receipts of suspected terrorists, as well as allowing law enforcement to seek "John Doe" roving wiretaps and nationwide search warrants.

The revisions, introduced two weeks ago, would require the FBI to demonstrate suspicion that a person is suspected of terrorism or spying before seizing library or business records, and would require the FBI to get a court order to get electronic communications from a library instead of using just an administrative subpoena.

It also would end nationwide search warrants, forcing Congress to reevaluate the power; require "John Doe" roving wiretaps to name either the person or the place to be tapped; and require law enforcement officials to inform a judge every seven days that telling the subject of a secret search would cause the destruction of evidence, tampering with evidence or a threat to someone's life.

"I think these are commonsense proposals," said another GOP senator trying to change the law, John Sununu of New Hampshire.

Other senators pushing for revisions include Republicans Mike Crapo of Idaho and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Democrats Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Richard Durbin of Illinois, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and Ron Wyden of Oregon.

Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said the law, as is, has been "an important tool" in the war on terrorism. "Those who would seek to repeal or water down the important tools in the Patriot Act would return America to the level of vulnerability to terrorist attack that existed prior to Sept. 11, 2001," Corallo said.

Passed overwhelmingly by Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Patriot Act has been criticized by civil liberty and privacy organizations as being too intrusive into American lives. But the Justice Department has defended the Patriot Act, saying it has been key to preventing a second catastrophic terrorist attack.

Democrats have been trying to build support in the Senate to rolling back portions of the Patriot Act.

"I believe it is possible to combat terrorism and preserve our individual freedoms at the same time," Durbin said. "The Patriot Act crossed the line on several key areas of civil liberties."

With Democrats and Republicans supporting the legislation, the bill "has a good chance of becoming law," Crapo said.

Craig said he expects the Justice Department to oppose their efforts. But "we think the public has spoken very clearly on this," he said.

Similar legislation will be introduced in the House, Craig said.
 
I was glad to see that some lawmakers are actually asking questions and making their concerns know. We'll have to wait to see how it all plays/pans out. :scrutiny:
 
hmmm

I'll believe it when I see it.

Why would the gov't give up the "The Government can do anything it wants" Law?

Why would Congress who passed it at the insistence of the DOJ and whoever else WITHOUT READING IT in the first place suddenly insist on anything resembling restoration of civil rights?

We'll see.
C-
 
In order to ward off charges of plagiarism (supposedly happened before), I found the story on the site below. I don't know where TheeBadOne found it.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/politics/7022748.htm

For those that don't know it's considered good netiquette to post links to your source. On more contentious sites weisenheimers will try to claim you quoted the story out of context and argue about it for ten pages.
 
Might also want to know that most of the Congress did not read the PATRIOT act. This was due to the fact that most of them were still in other remote offices after the anthrax mailings. Butch Otter voted for it back in October of 2001 and didn't even read it and took it at the Justice Department's word, and when the Anthrax mailings were occuring, it was hard to get accurate bill texts at that point, according to Congressman Otter.

Now Otter is leading the charge against the PATRIOT act, saying he and most of congress was bamboozled.
 
Might also want to know that most of the Congress did not read the PATRIOT act. This was due to the fact that most of them were still in other remote offices after the anthrax mailings.

They were terrified that anybody who stood up and said:

"Excuse me..... does anybody care that this is not constitutional?"

Would get labeled a Bin Laden lover and voted out of office. Now that there are so many disclosures about the truth surrounding that entire affair, some of the senator's spines have been Viagra-ed a bit and they are standing tall and trying to sound "decisive and courageous".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top