Senators Putting Nation in Harms Way

Status
Not open for further replies.

rick_reno

member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
3,027
It's time Jorge and Alberto take some of these Senators out in the hall and give them a good thrashing. Jorge could work above the belt, Alberto below. This legislation is the thin line protecting this Nation from terrorism and they should pass it immediately.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051214/D8EG15T85.html

House Ready, Senate Balks on Patriot Act

WASHINGTON (AP) - The GOP-controlled House plans to quickly renew portions of the USA Patriot Act before they expire at the end of the year. Some Republicans say the nation's safety could be endangered if the Senate doesn't follow suit.

The House on Wednesday was expected to pass a White House-backed bill that would renew more than a dozen provisions of the Act - the government's premier anti-terrorism law - which are due to expire Dec. 31.

But saving those provisions will be more difficult in the Republican-controlled Senate, where some GOP and Democratic senators are unsatisfied with the compromise bill, which was worked out last week between key Republicans in the House and Senate.

At least one senator, Democrat Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, is threatening a filibuster.

House leaders and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Tuesday warned the bill's opponents that they could be putting the country in danger by holding up the Act's reauthorization.

"The consequence of the Patriot Act expiring on December 31st is going to be putting the American people at greater risk," House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said.

Added Gonzales: "The tools in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act are very important to the success of the Department of Justice in protecting this country."

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 Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., added his voice Sunday.

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.

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.

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 thirds parties to produce those documents during terrorism investigations.

Senate Democrats joined by some libertarian-leaning Republicans want to extend the expiring provisions of the law by three months to give Congress time to add more protections against what they say are excessive police powers.

"There's no reason to compromise right to due process, the right to a judicial review, fair and reasonable standards of evidence in the pursuit of our security," said Sen. John E. Sununu, R-N.H., one of several senators urging Congress to move the expiration date to March 31.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., supports efforts to delay the vote, including a filibuster threatened by Feingold, "so there will be more time to work on a good bipartisan bill," said his spokesman, Jim Manley.
 
Please, please tell me you're being sarcastic rick. I may not agree with the Dems on much, but the 'Patriot' Act NEEDS to go.
 
Sorry, no, the Patriot Act is a great big political flag-colored pacifier. It's thumbsucking, not real security.

False sense of security, and the EXACT equivalent of harassing legal gun owners while criminals sneak around regardless.

Ports aren't secure, borders aren't secure, first-responders have no funds...but the feds can sneak-and-peek into your home without telling you. Yeah, that's...secure. Oh, yeah, and recently, they were also investigating a "suspicious" bunch of...Quakers.

BTW, GOOD legislation doesn't need weakly jingoistic names like this. This was meant to imply that if you didn't support the act, you're "not a patriot". Which is the most transparent form of BS possible.
 
I, too, hope the original post was intended as sarcasm. The so-called Patriot Act is nothing more or less than a blatant assault on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If the House didn't have the gumption to flush it, I sincerely hope the Senate will.
 
While I don't support the Democrats or fillabustering....well I'm constantly surprised cause for once I actually hope it happens.
 
Hawkmoon said:
The so-called Patriot Act is nothing more or less than a blatant assault on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...

We should establish a "Democrat Propaganda Free Zone" herein to protect us from the garbage they peddle and you quote!

So tell us, Hawkmoon, how you, in particular, have been affected by the imposition of the Patriot Act? List for us how you especially have been impacted by the Patriot Act? Cite specifics.
 
Camp David said:
We should establish a "Democrat Propaganda Free Zone" herein to protect us from the garbage they peddle and you quote!

So tell us, Hawkmoon, how you, in particular, have been affected by the imposition of the Patriot Act? List for us how you especially have been impacted by the Patriot Act? Cite specifics.
He likely couldn't answer that Q because the Feds aren't required to let us know if they perform a 'sneak 'n peek', or any of a number of other actions.
Biker
 
Biker said:
He likely couldn't answer that Q because the Feds aren't required to let us know if they perform a 'sneak 'n peek', or any of a number of other actions.

Yeah... I know of a lot of folks that see Polar Bears in every snowflake...they call them paranoid!
 
Camp David said:
Yeah... I know of a lot of folks that see Polar Bears in every snowflake...they call them paranoid!
***!!?? I believe that it was Einstein who said: "He who is without paranoia is not in full possession of the facts".
Now, address my statement, if you would. Given that the Feds do not have to let you know if you have been 'sneaked and peeked', how would you know if you have?
:p
Biker
 
Biker said:
Now, address my statement, if you would. Given that the Feds do not have to let you know if you have been 'sneaked and peeked', how would you know if you have?

Are you a dark-skinned Middle Eastern with jihadi tendancies that studied under a Mr. bin Laden? if you answer in the affirmative I can almost guarantee that a 'sneak and peak' is warranted... otherwise I suggest you ask your doctor for paranoid pills.

So... in specifics... you are actually concerned that one branch of federal government has the same records that another branch has? Wow... more paranoia.... get them pills!

I suggest it would be difficult to impossible to find one (1) person in America (those outside Guantanamo) adversely impacted by the Patriot Act! But go ahead and keep the embers of that Democrat Propaganda fanned! ;)
 
Camp David said:
Are you a dark-skinned Middle Eastern with jihadi tendancies that studied under a Mr. bin Laden? if you answer in the affirmative I can almost guarantee that a 'sneak and peak' is warranted... otherwise I suggest you ask your doctor for paranoid pills.

So... in specifics... you are actually concerned that one branch of federal government has the same records that another branch has? Wow... more paranoia.... get them pills!

I suggest it would be difficult to impossible to find one (1) person in America (those outside Guantanamo) adversely impacted by the Patriot Act! But go ahead and keep the embers of that Democrat Propaganda fanned! ;)
So, you can only ad hom? You didn't answer a thing, you just suggested pills.
Incidentally, what do you know about an American citizen named Padilla who was kept locked up for a few years without being charged with anything?
I fully expect another tap-dance, but one can hope...
Biker
 
Biker said:
Incidentally, what do you know about an American citizen named Padilla who was kept locked up for a few years without being charged with anything?

Ah... the darling of the leftist liberals....Jose Padilla...one-time TIME magazine's "Person of the Week"...otherwise known as a terrorist. No surprise that he's the friend of every Democrat and TIME magazine!

A few brief facts: Abdullah al-Muhajir is an illegal enemy combatant who was arrested in May 2002, he does not have to be charged. Why? He's a terrorist hailing from no nation (even though he is a Puerto Rican by nationality). As a member of Al Qaeda we should not charge him ever, simply hold him as we have. Charging him means that he qualifies as a enemy soldier from a host nation, which he is not. As a terrorist he merits only execution. He (Abdullah al-Muhajir) is not entitled to protection under the Geneva Convention since he is a terrorist as opposed to a lawful combatant.

Something else?
 
Camp David said:
Ah... the darling of the leftist liberals....Jose Padilla...one-time TIME magazine's "Person of the Week"...otherwise known as a terrorist. No surprise that he's the friend of every Democrat and TIME magazine!

A few brief facts: Abdullah al-Muhajir is an illegal enemy combatant who was arrested in May 2002, he does not have to be charged. Why? He's a terrorist hailing from no nation (even though he is a Puerto Rican by nationality). As a member of Al Qaeda we should not charge him ever, simply hold him as we have. Charging him means that he qualifies as a enemy soldier from a host nation, which he is not. As a terrorist he merits only execution. He (Abdullah al-Muhajir) is not entitled to protection under the Geneva Convention since he is a terrorist as opposed to a lawful combatant.

Something else?
He's an American citizen. End of story. Heh heh...You could put Fred Astaire to shame.
;)
Biker
 
The FBI

has a long history of conducting unlawful surveillance of people it did not like, Rev. Martin Luther King jr. f'rinstance.
They had a lot of info pointing to destruction of the World Trade Center and did diddley.
I'm no fan of the Patriot Act.
 
Camp David said:
I suggest it would be difficult to impossible to find one (1) person in America (those outside Guantanamo) adversely impacted by the Patriot Act! But go ahead and keep the embers of that Democrat Propaganda fanned! ;)

Camp David - you haven't been paying attention to the news. Tish, tish.

Let's try David Banach, charged with aiming a laser into a plane cockpit under the Patriot Act. I think even you would agree this charge has adversely impacted him.

One not enough? Try University of South Florida professor Sami Al-Arian. He's in jail, I don't know if that fits your definition of "adversely impacted", but it would mine.

Need more - Denver resident Mike Maginnis, a photographer grabbed while taking pictures during five time draft deferment Dick Cheney's visit to Denver.
His story is especially good. Read about him and let us know if he was "adversely impacted".

Camp David - You can Google these people and get the stories as easily as I can.
 
I'm glad this was sarcasm. :(
I see former Congressman Bob Barr is on the job, arguing against this so called patriot act which is really the Unpatriot act, which will do nothing but help the goverment power and authority mongers to violate the Constitution, it's Bill of Rights, and still not solve a terrorism case any better then they did before.:banghead:

All they do is infight, compete for a pat on the head, and ignore solid evidence when it is presented to them by conscientious Americans, like the FBI agent who turned in his report in time to stop September 11th attack. :banghead:
 
I suggest it would be difficult to impossible to find one (1) person in America (those outside Guantanamo) adversely impacted by the Patriot Act!
Look up Michael Galati, former owner of Las Vegas strip clubs, who went down in Federal Flames for bribing San Diego City Councilmen via one of the first recorded uses of the Patriot Act.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2003/nov/04/110410819.html
Other nefarious ner-do-well types who deserve to be PatriotActed...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/09/14/national1259EDT0480.DTL

Imagine. The Federal Government actually telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth about such legislation, a bill that was read by how many voting elected officials (or their staff?) prior to sweeping mandate...

Coordination when gathering and sharing information on known bad-guys is a good thing and should probably continue. Gathering info on John Doe Anyman who MIGHT become a suspect in our war on terror (exactly what or who is a terrorist... today?) well, I kinda have to wonder about that being a well-thought out plan of action.

I could be wrong.
 
Camp David said:
Are you a dark-skinned Middle Eastern with jihadi tendancies that studied under a Mr. bin Laden? if you answer in the affirmative I can almost guarantee that a 'sneak and peak' is warranted... otherwise I suggest you ask your doctor for paranoid pills.

So... in specifics... you are actually concerned that one branch of federal government has the same records that another branch has? Wow... more paranoia.... get them pills!

I suggest it would be difficult to impossible to find one (1) person in America (those outside Guantanamo) adversely impacted by the Patriot Act! But go ahead and keep the embers of that Democrat Propaganda fanned! ;)

Please check your facts. They'd just been investigating a bunch of QUAKERS under the "patriot act" because...gasp...Quakers are pacifists and have been for hundreds of years, it's part of their religion.
 
My problem with the Patriot Act (ugh) is simple. It is simply unconstitutional. I don't have to be affected by that trash they call a law to feel that way. The same way I don't have to have been adversly affect by gun control legislation to realize that THAT is wrong as well.

He who gives up liberty for temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety - Ben Franklin

Tom
 
Tomcat1066 said:
My problem with the Patriot Act (ugh) is simple. It is simply unconstitutional. I don't have to be affected by that trash they call a law to feel that way. The same way I don't have to have been adversly affect by gun control legislation to realize that THAT is wrong as well.

He who gives up liberty for temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety - Ben Franklin

Tom: I respect you opinion. I maintain, however, that few if any have been impacted by the Patriot Act and its use today is necessary during the current War on Terror. I don't see it as an abridgement of a right. During WWII there were abridgments of the Bill of Rights made necessary by the war in Europe. Nobody complained then!

I also sometimes wonder how ben Franklin would have reacted to hijacked airplanes(!) and terrorism... he would have revised his thinking dramatically I think!
 
So, let me get this straight. Suspending parts of the Constitution is acceptable during wartime? I hope I'm just misunderstanding you, because I have to strongly disagree with you there. For example, what if the government required registration of all firearms and gun owners in an effort to combat an insurgency from taking place here? What if people were being arrested for simply stating their opinions because those opinions were contrary to the "war effort"?

Sure, those are extreme examples, but I use them to illustrate my point, which is that wrong is wrong. It doesn't matter whether I've been impacted by the Patriot Act or not. What happened during World War II (I assume you're talking about the internment camps for Japanese Americans? If not, please clarify) was just as wrong. Did people complain then? Doesn't matter. I'm not responsible for anyone's actions back then. I'd like to think I would have had a problem with it just as I do about this so-called "Patriot" Act.

As for Benjamin Franklin and his thoughts, you feel he would change his mind. Personally, I don't agree. 9-11, while horrible, should not be an excuse for suspending the Constitution. If it is, then where will it end?

Tom
 
I used to think rick reno was just stupid, but now I think he's a shill spreading propaganda online for the feds.

It's obvious Camp David is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top