Officials: Patriot Act extension could be blocked

Status
Not open for further replies.

rick_reno

member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
3,027
Looks like I'll need to head for my bunker, given Congress doesn't consider my safety important. I'll be safe there. Luckily, we have leadership in President Bush who knows how important this bill is to protecting liberty and freedom. Maybe he could come back to Washington and provide some of that "leadership" in this time of need.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562008/

WASHINGTON - House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner threatened Thursday to block passage of legislation renewing the anti-terror Patriot Act, Republican officials disclosed.

The Senate passed a six-month extension Wednesday night, and House approval is required by Dec. 31 to keep in place the enhanced law enforcement powers first enacted in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Sensenbrenner’s spokesman declined comment.

The Senate action effectively sidetracked a comprehensive House-Senate compromise that would have extended most of the existing law indefinitely, making several changes in the meantime. It was blocked by a Democrat-led filibuster in the Senate, in which critics claimed the legislation failed to protect the civil liberties of innocent Americans.

The maneuvering occurred as Bush left Washington believing that Congress would not let the law expire.

“It appears to me that the Congress understands we got to keep the Patriot Act in place, that we’re still under threat,” Bush said just before boarding a helicopter headed to Camp David, Md., for a long holiday weekend with his family.

New Senate vote would be necessary
The Republican officials demanded anonymity because Sensenbrenner had not revealed his intentions publicly. The Senate-passed six-month extension would pass the House only with no amendments. Any change to it would require a new Senate vote.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who had led the Democratic filibuster against permanently renewing most of the law’s expiring provisions, said the six-month extension “will allow more time to finally agree on a bill that protects our rights and freedoms while preserving important tools for fighting terrorism.”

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 permanent the rest of the Patriot Act powers, like the roving wiretaps that allow investigators to listen in on any telephone and tap any computer they think a target might use, has been a priority of the administration and Republican lawmakers.

Some civil liberties safeguards had been inserted into legislation for renewing that law but Senate Democrats and a small group of GOP senators blocked it anyway, arguing that more safeguards were needed.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he had no choice but to accept a six-month extension in the face of a successful filibuster and the Patriot Act’s Dec. 31 expiration date. “I’m not going to let the Patriot Act die,” Frist said.

A temporary solution for Bush
Bush indicated that he would sign the extension. “The work of Congress on the Patriot Act is not finished,” Bush said. “The act will expire next summer, but the terrorist threat to America will not expire on that schedule. I look forward to continuing to work with Congress to reauthorize the Patriot Act.”

Frist said he had not consulted with House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., yet on the six-month extension. Senior Republicans there have opposed any temporary extension of the current law, insisting that most of the expiring provisions should be renewed permanently, but it would be difficult for the House to reject a plan agreed to by the Senate and President Bush.

The six-month “extension ensures that the tools provided to law enforcement in terrorist investigations in the Patriot Act remain in effect while Congress works out the few differences that remain,” said Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., one of a small group of Republicans who crossed party lines to block the Patriot Act legislation.

Republicans who had pushed for legislation that would make most of the expiring provisions permanent said the agreement only postpones the ongoing arguments over the Patriot Act for six months. “We’ll be right back where we are right now,” said a clearly frustrated Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
 
You go, Rep. Sensenbrenner!! You tell them "Extend all of it into perpetuity, or it won't pass the House." Be a man, stand up for what you believe in!!! :evil:

Well, this time anyway, because you're probably putting a round into your foot in doing so.
 
Just in - House rejects 6 month extension and votes for a 1 month extension. My bunker bag is packed.
 
Here's the story - http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/22/patriot.act.ap/index.html

I'm not feeling safe, time for some hot chocolate.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House passed a one-month extension of the Patriot Act on Thursday and sent it to the Senate for final action as Congress scrambled to prevent expiration of anti-terror law enforcement provisions on December 31.

Approval came on a voice vote in a nearly empty chamber, after Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, refused to agree to a six-month extension the Senate cleared several hours earlier.

House passage marked the latest step in a stalemate that first pitted Republicans against Democrats in the Senate, then turned into an intramural GOP dispute.

It was not clear when the Senate would act on the one-month bill, but approval was possible by evening.

Without action by Congress, several provisions enacted in the days following the 2001 terror attacks are due to expire. President Bush has repeatedly called on Congress not to let that happen.

The Senate vote Wednesday night marked a turnabout for GOP leaders, who had long insisted they would accept nothing less than a permanent renewal of the law. The House approved the measure earlier this month, but a Democratic-led filibuster blocked passage in the Senate, with critics arguing the bill would shortchange the civil liberties of innocent Americans.

Passage of a one-month extension would require lawmakers to debate the issue early in 2006, and is certain to require concessions to the Senate critics who are seeking greater privacy protections.
 
How about abandoning our foreign policy of constant interventionism all over the world: arming this faction, supporting that dictator, overthrowing that regime, giving billions in foreign aid to this or that nation...

Maybe if we didn't make so many enemies all over the world (hint: that's the necessary result of taking sides in somebodies fight...which we seem to do pretty much whenever anyone, anywhere is fighting) and just stayed home and minded our own business, we wouldn't have people from all over the world trying to blow us up. You think?

There's no amount of law that can protect us from a world full of desperate, hopeless, well equipped fanatics who wish us harm, though those laws can and will have serious consequences at home.

Close off the borders. Bring our troops home (from everywhere). Reinvest the $$ in intelligence and missile defense. Trust the free market. Get to work on domestic issues. That's what our president and senators ought to be concerning themselves with.
 
Yesterday, the senate, via an unrecorded voice vote, extended PA by 6 months. Today, Rep. Sensenbrenner, chair of Judiciary Committee seems to have arranged a 5 week stretch out, and later today, the house might end up opting for 1 month.

Who's on first, what's on second might be appropriate.
 
If the administration wants more PA, it needs to explain why. It needs to explain, in detail, how 9/11 would have been prevented by PA provisions. It needs to explain what attacks have been prevented by the PA. The administration has failed to articulate itself in a compelling enough fashion to convince Congress and the American people that not only the PA, but the war in Iraq is necessary. The burden is on the administration to make itself understood.
 
R.H. Lee said:
The administration has failed to articulate itself in a compelling enough fashion to convince Congress and the American people that not only the PA, but the war in Iraq is necessary. The burden is on the administration to make itself understood.

Bush supporters understand it perfectly, because they were willing to listen and to accept the leadership the first time. The rest is just whining opposition who will never accept any explanation. They should simply wait for another election. Undermining the President as a political campaign tactic just isn't working. People are tired of the predictably negative stuff, day in, day out. I have nothing against valid criticism and have some of my own, but Bush is a good man and should be allowed to do his job. When mistakes are made, let's hope for corrections. If Congress has to intervene, could it please be for other than partisan reasons? A little personal integrity on behalf of everyone would be so refreshing...something very unlike a Harry Reid, for example. He will go the same route as Tom Daschle. I suspect he knows that.
 
Luckily, we have leadership in President Bush who knows how important this bill is to protecting liberty and freedom. Maybe he could come back to Washington and provide some of that "leadership" in this time of need.
"Don't step in the leadership."

Seriously, though, am I the only one who thinks voice votes (and tellers, and anything else non-roll-call) ought to be illegal? How am I supposed to hold my representatives accountable if I don't know how they voted?
 
They extended it for a month so that they could keep their control over people while still appearing to be fighting for freedom. This thing wont be going away any time soon, its just a convenient means of generating "political capital".

Maybe all of our congress persons can get on the soapbox and shout about freedom, and then quietly renew it each and every month. It will always be an unrecorded vote so that they can all claim that they are doing what their constituents want.
 
If Congress has to intervene, could it please be for other than partisan reasons?
Not this Congress, and that's the problem. The Democrats are utterly bankrupt; ethically, morally, and intellectually. We sent Republicans to Washington to defeat the opposition, not negotiate, make 'deals', and enjoy 'comity'. We won, why don't we start acting like we won?
 
Actually what should happen is they should now take the time to actually look at this thing and do it right. They were stampeded into it the first time, and need to get serious about some of the more egregious provisions. At this moment in history we need something like this...with yearly sunset requirements.
 
Supporters of PA need to explain how this isn't in any smallest way a violation of our civil liberties, and if it is, they have to be ready to amend the constitution to weed out those pesky amendments that protect our rights. :fire: There aren't just two americas (red states and blue states), but probably three or more. The reds and the blues have both given up the Constitution and want to pervert our Republic into something else (either a neo-socialist state or an authoritarian or even fascist state). Then there are those with "classic liberal" or more commonly "libertarian" ideals that have no tolerance for the liberal or conservative agendas which each seek to burn the Constitution from different ends.
 
Flyboy said:
"Don't step in the leadership."
8.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top