Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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 1-2021-4041-50 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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

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.
23 posted on 11/18/2005 10:02:30 AM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

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
27 posted on 11/18/2005 10:23:26 AM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

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.
32 posted on 11/18/2005 11:29:09 AM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush

Will do.


33 posted on 11/18/2005 11:37:00 AM PST by Still Thinking (Disregard the law of unintended consequences at your own risk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

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!!
34 posted on 11/18/2005 2:34:11 PM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: mysterio; Yasotay; GrandEagle
Just heard on the news on radio that Patriot is now stalled in the Senate.

Pour it on!
35 posted on 11/18/2005 2:41:18 PM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

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...
36 posted on 11/18/2005 2:53:45 PM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: blackbart.223

Feingold certainly doesnt care about the first or second amendments.


37 posted on 11/18/2005 2:56:19 PM PST by hubbubhubbub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
Specter’s Republican colleagues are furious that he’s 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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson