Should we renew the Patriot Act?

[Accountable]

U.S. House Votes to Extend Revised Patriot Act

The Washington Post
Charles Babington December 15, 2005
The House voted 251 to 174 yesterday to renew the USA Patriot Act, setting up a confrontation over the revised anti-terrorism measure with a group of Democratic and Republican senators who say it would not go far enough to protect civil liberties.
The Patriot Act, approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, made it easier for the FBI to conduct secret searches, monitor telephone calls and e-mails, and obtain bank records and other personal documents in connection with terrorism investigations.
Civil liberties groups say the proposed renewal would do too little to let targeted people challenge national security letters and types of subpoenas that give the FBI substantial latitude in deciding what records -- including those from libraries -- should be surrendered.
The White House and GOP leaders urged Republicans to support the president and extend the law, which is scheduled to expire Dec. 31. "Renewing the Patriot Act before it expires in December is literally a matter of life and death," said Rep. Ric Keller (R-Fla.). Forty-four Democrats joined 207 Republicans in voting to renew key provisions of the act, with some modifications, for four years. Eighteen Republicans, 155 Democrats and one independent voted against it.
Democrats voting yes included party Whip Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) and Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee. Harman said the bill is needed "to track communications by e-mail and Internet, including the use of Internet sites in libraries, and to prevent and disrupt plots against us."
President Bush hailed the vote, saying the act "is essential to fighting the war on terror and preventing our enemies from striking America again." However, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said during the House debate: "We're not protecting ourselves, but we are endangering our liberties."
An unusual coalition of Democrats and moderate-to-conservative Republicans in the Senate opposes the bill. Members say they will support a filibuster, promised by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), intended to kill it through long debate. Stopping a filibuster would require 60 votes in the 100-member Senate, where Republicans hold 55 seats.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), who supports the bill, told reporters yesterday that he believes that "ultimately we're going to be successful." But top aides said the vote was too close to predict the final outcome.
Frist said he would not accept a "short-term extension" of the existing Patriot Act. But many Democrats and some Republicans want a one- or three-month renewal of the law to allow more time to negotiate the proposed four-year extension after Congress's winter recess. The first votes testing the filibuster are expected tomorrow.
The sharpest debate in both chambers has centered on proposed changes to provisions that allow investigators to demand business records, library logs and other items connected to suspects. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who supports the bill, wrote a seven-page letter to colleagues rebutting claims that the revisions would do too little to protect innocent people from invasion of privacy. Investigators would have to show a special judge "a statement of facts" connecting the documents being sought with an ongoing investigation, he noted.
But some Republicans are unconvinced. The legislation does not spell out a targeted person's right to a "specific judicial review" of the "gag order" that is included in the records' search to ensure secrecy, Sen. John E. Sununu (N.H.) said yesterday. "There are a lot of Republicans and independents and Democrats who believe civil liberties should be protected as you extend the Patriot Act," he added.
Some Democrats have expressed fears that a vote against the Patriot Act extension may be used against them in next year's elections. They note that former senator Max Cleland (D-Ga.) was accused of being unpatriotic for voting against creation of the Homeland Security Department under guidelines opposed by labor unions. But Sununu said, "I don't believe this is a partisan issue" because so many Republicans oppose the Patriot Act legislation and dozens of Democrats support it.
The House-passed bill also includes millions of dollars to combat the manufacturing and use of methamphetamine, a drug that has hit rural communities especially hard. The law would limit consumers' purchases of cold medicines that include pseudoephedrine, a key ingredient of meth.
In Virginia's congressional delegation, all Republicans voted for the bill and all Democrats voted against it. In Maryland, those voting for the bill were Democrats Hoyer, Benjamin L. Cardin, C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger and Republican Wayne T. Gilchrest. Voting nay were Democrats Elijah E. Cummings, Chris Van Hollen and Albert R. Wynn and Republican Roscoe G. Bartlett.

[Accountable]

And what's meth production got to do with terrorism???

[SOJOURNER]

Originally Posted by Accountable

And what's meth production got to do with terrorism???

It's just a little attachment to the original bill that someone wants passed.

Why we cannot get this attachment thing stopped, I don't know. I'd work toward getting that change passed.

[Nomad]

Should we renew the Patriot Act?

No ! And I hope he gets impeached for spying on American citizens without going through proper channels. He single handedly has done more to chip away at the constitution than all of the presidents combined in the last 200 yrs.

[Nomad]

It's just a little attachment to the original bill that someone wants passed.

Isnt that special ? They have attached an Alaskan oil drilling bill to the defense budget because it couldnt get passed on its own. Is this blatant manipulation or what ? Politicians....what a nasty breed !

[Azrayel]

I think that we should use every weapon at our disposal. While we as americans are worried if we are being politicaly correct to everyone, these guys are trying to destroy us. While we are passing bills not to torture P.O.W's, these guys are killing our people and soldiers on web cams and showing them on the internet. I have not read the 300 page patriot act document, but I agree wih the main idea of the act. Nomad I agree with you fully on your outlook of Bush Jr. You also forgot about how he single handedly destroyed the U.S reputation.

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by Azrayel

I think that we should use every weapon at our disposal. While we as americans are worried if we are being politicaly correct to everyone, these guys are trying to destroy us. While we are passing bills not to torture P.O.W's, these guys are killing our people and soldiers on web cams and showing them on the internet. I have not read the 300 page patriot act document, but I agree wih the main idea of the act. Nomad I agree with you fully on your outlook of Bush Jr. You also forgot about how he single handedly destroyed the U.S reputation.

Freedom is what we are about. It is our 'family fortune.' Without it, there may as well not be a USA.

No, we should not use every weapon at our disposal. The whatever enforcement agencies should not be allowed to look wherever they think something might be up. The next step is "well if you don't have anything to hide, why would you object to us looking?" Close & lock the doors (borders); check out whoever wants to come in. Fine. But once they're inside this country, you damn well better have good reason to investigate them, because you damn well better have good reason to investigate ME.

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by Nomad

Should we renew the Patriot Act?

No ! And I hope he gets impeached for spying on American citizens without going through proper channels. He single handedly has done more to chip away at the constitution than all of the presidents combined in the last 200 yrs.

You might want to check that last statement. Lincoln and FDR would give him a run for his money.

[BTS]

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary

Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

~Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the
governor, November 11, 1755

I think ol Ben Franklin was a wise man and this quote fits still today!

[LilacDragon]

While I think that the safety of the American people is very important (I am one, after all), I worry that the Patriot Act gives law enforcement just a little too much freedom to do what they will where they will.

Are we really to believe that there are so many terrorists on American soil that law enforcement agencies don't have time to get the proper legal documents to keep an eye on them? If this is the case, then I think we need to look and see if these are people who are citizens or people that have gotten into the country either illegally or by lying on visa applications.

In the Province of Ontario, in Canada, a "pit bull" law was passed this summer. (Bear with me - it does keep with the topic.) According to this new law, if someone reports a "dangerous" dog - with no definition of dangerous - then local law enforcement has the authority to enter a home with no warrants - using whatever force necessary - to investigate. Local law enforcement is not able to do this when looking for drug dealers, gang members or murder suspects.

Just another erosion of rights.