Skip to comments.
Extension of Patriot Act Faces Threat of Filibuster
NY Times ^
| November 18, 2005
| ERIC LICHTBLAU
Posted on 11/17/2005 10:04:35 PM PST by neverdem
WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 - A tentative deal to extend the government's antiterrorism powers under the law known as the USA Patriot Act appeared in some jeopardy Thursday, as Senate Democrats threatened to mount a filibuster in an effort to block the legislation.
"This is worth the fight," Senator Russell D. Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat who serves on the Judiciary Committee, said in an interview.
"I've cleared my schedule right up to Thanksgiving," Mr. Feingold said, adding that he was making plans to read aloud from the Bill of Rights as part of a filibuster if necessary.
The political maneuvering came even before negotiators for the House and Senate had agreed on a final deal to extend the government's counterterrorism powers under the act.
With a tentative deal in place on Wednesday, Congressional negotiators had been expected to reach a final, printed agreement by early Thursday for the full House and Senate to consider. But despite minute-by-minute updates about a possible conclusion, the day passed on with no final agreement, causing no shortage of nervousness among Bush administration officials and Republican supporters of the tentative deal.
By Thursday evening, officials said negotiators had reached what amounted to an impasse for the day, as those from the Senate pushed for further civil rights safeguards that were seen as unacceptable to House leaders. Talks are expected to pick up again on Friday, officials said.
The tentative deal reached by negotiators would make permanent 14 of the 16 provisions of the law that are set to expire at the end of the year. The remaining two provisions - related to government demands for records from businesses and libraries and its use of roving wiretaps - would have to be reconsidered in seven years, as would a separate provision on taking aim at people suspected...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Alaska; US: Colorado; US: District of Columbia; US: Idaho; US: Illinois; US: New Hampshire; US: Wisconsin; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 109th; banglist; craig; durbin; feingold; filibuster; murkowksi; patriotact; salazar; sununu
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-50 next last
To: jwpjr
I've long advocated that when some new threat is "discovered" that is so dire they just HAVE to make a new law to counter it, they must find TWO laws they're willing to repeal. AND, the two repealed cannot be laws that limit the power of the government relative to the citizens (IOW, no cheating). After about 50 years on that track, the CFR might again fit in a bookcase, and the phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse" might be true again.
21
posted on
11/18/2005 9:12:43 AM PST
by
Still Thinking
(Disregard the law of unintended consequences at your own risk.)
To: KarinG1
And for him it would be for the first time.
22
posted on
11/18/2005 9:24:48 AM PST
by
ChildOfThe60s
(If you can remember the 60s......you weren't really there.)
To: GrandEagle
Just made a follow-up call to Nelson to reinforce my earlier one...
Ping 'em if you got 'em. The public can make a difference on this one. It's clear that's it's teetering already.
To: neverdem
Good. I hope the dems block the whole bill forever. The government needs less power to violate our rights, not more.
24
posted on
11/18/2005 10:04:36 AM PST
by
mysterio
To: mysterio
Good. I hope the dems block the whole bill forever. The government needs less power to violate our rights, not more.Has the universe stopped expanding and begun contracting? Does result now precede cause? Are we now hoping for DEMOCRATS to protect our civil liberties? Did RBG recently get it right on a SCOTUS case the conservatives got wrong? Someone check the Hades weather forecast!
25
posted on
11/18/2005 10:08:39 AM PST
by
Still Thinking
(Disregard the law of unintended consequences at your own risk.)
To: Still Thinking
Yes. In this case, we are hoping for democrats to protect our civil liberties against a Republican attack. Not that I think they are doing it for any reason other than obstruction, mind you. Useful idiots, I suppose. The Patriot act is what made me initially consider the libertarian party. Any extension or expansion of this act is bad for America.
26
posted on
11/18/2005 10:12:57 AM PST
by
mysterio
To: Doctor Stochastic; al_again; BlackbirdSST; AMERIKA; 1rudeboy; TERMINATTOR; endthematrix; ...
ping. Call your Senators! Now is the time if you want to be heard.
Akaka, Daniel - (D - HI)
(202) 224-6361
E-mail:
senator@akaka.senate.gov
Alexander, Lamar - (R - TN)
(202) 224-4944
Allard, Wayne - (R - CO)
(202) 224-5941
Allen, George - (R - VA)
(202) 224-4024
Baucus, Max - (D - MT)
(202) 224-2651
Bayh, Evan - (D - IN)
(202) 224-5623
Bennett, Robert - (R - UT)
(202) 224-5444
Biden, Joseph - (D - DE)
(202) 224-5042
E-mail:
senator@biden.senate.gov
Bingaman, Jeff - (D - NM)
(202) 224-5521
E-mail:
senator_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov
Bond, Christopher - (R - MO)
(202) 224-5721
Boxer, Barbara - (D - CA)
(202) 224-3553
Brownback, Sam - (R - KS)
(202) 224-6521
Bunning, Jim - (R - KY)
(202) 224-4343
Burns, Conrad - (R - MT)
(202) 224-2644
Burr, Richard - (R - NC)
(202) 224-3154
Byrd, Robert - (D - WV)
(202) 224-3954
Cantwell, Maria - (D - WA)
(202) 224-3441
Carper, Thomas - (D - DE)
(202) 224-2441
Chafee, Lincoln - (R - RI)
(202) 224-2921
Chambliss, Saxby - (R - GA)
(202) 224-3521
Clinton, Hillary - (D - NY)
(202) 224-4451
Coburn, Tom - (R - OK) Class III
UNITED STATES SENATE WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5754
Cochran, Thad - (R - MS)
(202) 224-5054
Coleman, Norm - (R - MN)
(202) 224-5641
Collins, Susan - (R - ME)
(202) 224-2523
Conrad, Kent - (D - ND)
(202) 224-2043
Cornyn, John - (R - TX)
(202) 224-2934
Corzine, Jon - (D - NJ)
(202) 224-4744
Craig, Larry - (R - ID)
(202) 224-2752
Crapo, Michael - (R - ID)
(202) 224-6142
Dayton, Mark - (D - MN)
(202) 224-3244
DeMint, Jim - (R - SC)
(202) 224-6121
DeWine, Mike - (R - OH)
(202) 224-2315
Dodd, Christopher - (D - CT)
(202) 224-2823
Dole, Elizabeth - (R - NC)
(202) 224-6342
Domenici, Pete - (R - NM)
(202) 224-6621
Dorgan, Byron - (D - ND)
(202) 224-2551
E-mail:
senator@dorgan.senate.gov
Durbin, Richard - (D - IL)
(202) 224-2152
Ensign, John - (R - NV)
(202) 224-6244
Enzi, Michael - (R - WY)
(202) 224-3424
Feingold, Russell - (D - WI)
(202) 224-5323
Feinstein, Dianne - (D - CA)
(202) 224-3841
Frist, Bill - (R - TN)
(202) 224-3344
Graham, Lindsey - (R - SC)
(202) 224-5972
Grassley, Chuck - (R - IA)
(202) 224-3744
Gregg, Judd - (R - NH)
(202) 224-3324
E-mail:
mailbox@gregg.senate.gov
Hagel, Chuck - (R - NE)
(202) 224-4224
Harkin, Tom - (D - IA)
(202) 224-3254
Hatch, Orrin - (R - UT)
(202) 224-5251
Hutchison, Kay - (R - TX)
(202) 224-5922
Inhofe, James - (R - OK)
(202) 224-4721
Inouye, Daniel - (D - HI)
(202) 224-3934
Isakson, Johnny - (R - GA)
(202) 224-3643
Jeffords, James - (I - VT)
(202) 224-5141
Johnson, Tim - (D - SD)
(202) 224-5842
Kennedy, Edward - (D - MA)
(202) 224-4543
Kerry, John - (D - MA)
(202) 224-2742
Kohl, Herb - (D - WI)
(202) 224-5653
Kyl, Jon - (R - AZ)
(202) 224-4521
Landrieu, Mary -
(202) 224-5824
Lautenberg, Frank - (D - NJ)
(202) 224-3224
Leahy, Patrick - (D - VT)
(202) 224-4242
E-mail:
senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov
Levin, Carl - (D - MI)
(202) 224-6221
Lieberman, Joseph - (D - CT)
(202) 224-4041
Lincoln, Blanche - (D - AR)
(202) 224-4843
Lott, Trent - (R - MS)
(202) 224-6253
E-mail:
senatorlott@lott.senate.gov
Lugar, Richard - (R - IN)
(202) 224-4814
E-mail:
senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov
Martinez, Mel - (R - FL)
(202) 224-3041
McCain, John - (R - AZ)
(202) 224-2235
McConnell, Mitch - (R - KY)
(202) 224-2541
Mikulski, Barbara - (D - MD)
(202) 224-4654
Murkowski, Lisa - (R - AK)
(202) 224-6665
Murray, Patty - (D - WA)
(202) 224-2621
Nelson, Bill - (D - FL)
(202) 224-5274
Nelson, Ben - (D - NE)
(202) 224-6551
Obama, Barack - (D - IL)
(202) 224-2854
Pryor, Mark - (D - AR)
(202) 224-2353
Reed, Jack - (D - RI)
(202) 224-4642
Reid, Harry - (D - NV)
(202) 224-3542
Roberts, Pat - (R - KS)
(202) 224-4774
Rockefeller, John - (D - WV)
(202) 224-6472
E-mail:
senator@rockefeller.senate.gov
Salazar, Ken - (D - CO)
(202) 224-5852
Santorum, Rick - (R - PA)
(202) 224-6324
Sarbanes, Paul - (D - MD)
(202) 224-4524
Schumer, Charles - (D - NY)
(202) 224-6542
Sessions, Jeff - (R - AL)
(202) 224-4124
Shelby, Richard - (R - AL)
(202) 224-5744
E-mail:
senator@shelby.senate.gov
Smith, Gordon - (R - OR)
(202) 224-3753
Snowe, Olympia - (R - ME)
(202) 224-5344
E-mail:
olympia@snowe.senate.gov
Specter, Arlen - (R - PA)
(202) 224-4254
E-mail:
arlen_specter@specter.senate.gov
Stabenow, Debbie - (D - MI)
(202) 224-4822
Stevens, Ted - (R - AK)
(202) 224-3004
Sununu, John - (R - NH)
(202) 224-2841
Talent, James - (R - MO)
(202) 224-6154
Thomas, Craig - (R - WY)
(202) 224-6441
Thune, John - (R - SD)
(202) 224-2321
Vitter, David - (R - LA)
(202) 224-4623
Voinovich, George - (R - OH)
(202) 224-3353
Warner, John - (R - VA)
(202) 224-2023
Wyden, Ron - (D - OR)
(202) 224-5244
To: mysterio
Yes. In this case, we are hoping for democrats to protect our civil liberties against a Republican attack. Not that I think they are doing it for any reason other than obstruction, mind you. Useful idiots, I suppose. The Patriot act is what made me initially consider the libertarian party. Any extension or expansion of this act is bad for America.I'm with you, brother, on evey point. A lot of Freepers don't seem to mind the massive expansion of government scope and powers under Bush because they believe he's a good guy. But the powers and programs will outlast his administration and would be truly scary in the hands of President Hillary. To be frank, I don't even want a Republican government to have those kinds of powers. What government, of whatever flavor, needs to do, is to flip the PC anti-profiling crowd the bird and restrict the freedoms of the bad guys and leave the good guys alone.
28
posted on
11/18/2005 10:55:00 AM PST
by
Still Thinking
(Disregard the law of unintended consequences at your own risk.)
To: George W. Bush
Both of our Arizona "Republic"an senators favor it. :-(
29
posted on
11/18/2005 11:03:03 AM PST
by
Still Thinking
(Disregard the law of unintended consequences at your own risk.)
To: neverdem
Have to wonder how the media lets a slimeball like Dick Durbin rail against the wiretapping provisions of the Patriot Act when he passed along an illegally taped phone call between Newt Gingrich and his legal team.
30
posted on
11/18/2005 11:27:21 AM PST
by
weegee
(To understand the left is to rationalize how abortion can be a birthright.)
To: George W. Bush
Please see my comment #30.
31
posted on
11/18/2005 11:28:07 AM PST
by
weegee
(To understand the left is to rationalize how abortion can be a birthright.)
To: Still Thinking
Both of our Arizona "Republic"an senators favor it. :-(
Of course. But the Senate was unanimous. It's the House version which is far more odious.
That's what it's about. Four years until review with the worst stuff stripped out or seven more years with all the worst stuff left in.
Call your senators and urge them to stick to their guns. Remind them that it is the Senate which is intended to safeguard the Constitution, not some punyheads that get a two-year term in the House.
We may not be able to defeat it. But we can help strip the really objectionable stuff out.
To: George W. Bush
33
posted on
11/18/2005 11:37:00 AM PST
by
Still Thinking
(Disregard the law of unintended consequences at your own risk.)
To: weegee
Durbin is slime. But that doesn't mean we should let the most anti-liberty provisions of something like Patriot Act to pass.
Call your senator. Ping your buddies. It's crunch time!!
To: mysterio; Yasotay; GrandEagle
Just heard on the news on radio that Patriot is now stalled in the Senate.
Pour it on!
To: mysterio; Yasotay; GrandEagle
From
The Corner at National Review
SPECTER'S PATRIOT GAMES [Ramesh Ponnuru]
House and Senate negotiators made a deal on the Patriot Act late on Tuesday night. The next day, however, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter reneged on the deal because Pat Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the committee, didn’t like it.
There are three major issues outstanding. 1) The House had voted to renew several provisions of the Patriot Act for ten years, the Senate for four. The negotiators had split the difference: 7 years. But Leahy wants to re-open the deal to bring that number down. 2) Recipients of national security letters can’t disclose that they have received them. The bill loosens the rule, but creates penalties for breaking it. Leahy doesn’t want any penalties if the rule wasn’t broken with the specific intent of disrupting an investigation. 3) Recipients of the NSLs are supposed to notify the FBI before they contact a lawyer—just in case the lawyer they’re calling is Lynne Stewart or a Mohammed Atta who’s gone to law school. Leahy wants that provision dropped.
Most Republicans aren’t inclined to give ground on these issues. Specter’s Republican colleagues are furious that he’s gone back on his word, but they haven’t been saying anything to the press because they still want to get his signature on a deal.
Posted at 11:56 AM
Looking good...
To: blackbart.223
Feingold certainly doesnt care about the first or second amendments.
To: George W. Bush
Durbin lost his ability to criticize the bill on those grounds (which he DID) because of his ILLEGAL and IMMORAL actions.
And FReepers had better be willing to step forward and show what they have done to prevent the tapping of suspected mobster phones. If organized crime can be investigated through such means, then certainly those who mean to do great harm to random citizens deserve EQUAL (if not greater) surveillance.
38
posted on
11/18/2005 5:24:50 PM PST
by
weegee
(To understand the left is to rationalize how abortion can be a birthright.)
To: George W. Bush
Specters Republican colleagues are furious that hes gone back on his word Shazaam! Who could have seen this coming?
39
posted on
11/18/2005 6:35:25 PM PST
by
ChildOfThe60s
(If you can remember the 60s......you weren't really there.)
To: weegee
And FReepers had better be willing to step forward and show what they have done to prevent the tapping of suspected mobster phones. If organized crime can be investigated through such means, then certainly those who mean to do great harm to random citizens deserve EQUAL (if not greater) surveillance. If the government is unwilling to protect the borders, which pose the most clear and present danger to this country, why should one believe that it will use any tools it is given for the purpose of stopping the people we would call terrorists, as opposed to going after people who might try to force government accountability?
40
posted on
11/18/2005 6:48:22 PM PST
by
supercat
(Sony delinda est.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-50 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson