Posted on 12/16/2005 9:47:11 AM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - The Senate on Friday rejected attempts to reauthorize several provisions of the USA Patriot Act as infringing too much on Americans' privacy, dealing a major defeat to President Bush and Republican leaders.
In a crucial vote Friday morning as Congress raced toward adjournment, the bill's Senate supporters were not able to garner the 60 votes necessary to overcome a threatened filibuster by Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and their allies. The final vote was 52-47
Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and GOP congressional leaders had lobbied fiercely to make most of the expiring Patriot Act provisions permanent, and add new safeguards and expiration dates to the two most controversial parts: roving wiretaps and secret warrants for books, records and other items from businesses, hospitals and organizations such as libraries.
Making most of the act's provisions permanent was a priority for both the Bush administration and Republican leaders on Capitol Hill before Congress adjourns for the year.
The House on Wednesday passed a House-Senate compromise bill to renew the Act that supporters say added significant safeguards to the law.
But the law's critics, such as Feingold and Craig, say they don't want the Patriot Act to expire they just want enough time to improve the bill to the point where it doesn't infringe on American liberties. Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, and House Speaker Dennis Hastert have said they won't accept a short-term extension of the law.
"In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without these vital tools for a single moment," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said earlier today before the Senate vote.
Congress passed the Patriot Act overwhelmingly 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 bill's opponents say the original act was rushed into law, and Congress should take more time now to make sure the rights of innocent Americans are safeguarded before making most of the expiring provisions permanent.
They say the current Patriot Act gives government too much power to investigate people's private lives.
Thanks for the information. I'll make sure to contact them and give them my thanks for stopping renewal.
What are your reasons for not wanting the Patriot Act extended.
That's a lot of "if"s on which to sign away your rights.
Don't forget to send some to Bush for not implementing various measures suggested to protect the country. Of course, any attack will most likely not be attributable to any one thing. 9/11 might have been avoided simply if some superiors in the FBI had listened to their subordinates. How does the PA affect that?
What rights have we lost under the Patriot Act?
I have not lost any, have you?
From what I have read and heard WWII, the American's gave up alot, at the end of the war all was restored.
This time we are fighting terrorism, much different than a specific country, you can have a terrorist next door to you, and that, in my view is scary as hell.
Much of the judicial oversight specified in the Constitution is gone.
From what I have read and heard WWII, the American's gave up alot, at the end of the war all was restored.
With the exception of the Japanese internment, I don't remember us giving up anything along the lines of rights. We gave up material things.
This time we are fighting terrorism, much different than a specific country, you can have a terrorist next door to you, and that, in my view is scary as hell.
A never-ending war I believe, just like the war with Eurasia and Eastasia. How convenient.
just like the war with Eurasia and Eastasia. How convenient.
Mind explaining that?
Judicial oversight gone? I disagree. I want surveilance of overseas contact with those here that would want to harm us further. Clinton had Echelon, all presidents try to keep the U.S. from harm isn't that their job?
WWII,Americans had restrictions on gas, sugar, and other things, they pitched in to help anyway they could. I hope we never ever have another internment of any kind, but then during WWII we did not have the technology of today,if we did perhaps they would have been monitored from Japan. maybe internment was the way Roosevelt thought best to protect the nation.
I am not in a position to say who is right or wrong, I just want the president of this country no matter who is in office, to do the best they know how to do to protect it. 9-11 changed us forever.
Now, if we get hit again, and another hit is inevitable, Bush has a 4.5 year plus track record to run on. He can say I kept you safe until the party that is SOFT on national defense took away every tool that kept you safe. 4.5 plus years will speak for itself.
And without these tools another hit is certain. I guarantee these methods have thwarted many attacks.
In the book 1984, one of the measures to control the populace was the continual war with the other two superpowers. A populace in fear is a populace easily controlled because they don't mind rights lost when they think it's for thier own protection.
Judicial oversight gone? I disagree.
You don't remember national security letters and judges who by law must issue the warrants put before them no matter how baseless?
WWII,Americans had restrictions on gas, sugar, and other things, they pitched in to help anyway they could.
Yes, physical things. Not rights.
I just want the president of this country no matter who is in office, to do the best they know how to do to protect it.
And I want that president, no matter who is in office, to have to abide by the Constitution. Some may trust Bush not to abuse these powers, but who knows who's next.
9-11 changed us forever.
Pearl Harbor changed us forever, too.
WWII,Americans had restrictions on gas, sugar, and other things, they pitched in to help anyway they could.
Yes, physical things. Not rights.
I'm disturbed by the number of times I've seen this comparison. As if stocks of margarine are as important as our rights, or our rights as easily returned to the people once the government decides that the danger has passed.
In 2005 what rights have we lost?
I don't mean you, but in general people are idiots if they think the danger will ever pass. Any extra powers granted to the government, any constitutional rights infringed, in the name of 9/11 will remain forever if they escape the sunset clause.
Then the senate had better stay in session until something acceptable is passed.
This looks like a good time to invoke the nuclear option.
Exactly. That's the problem.
There is no end in sight, yet so many people are willing to give up their rights because they might feel a little safer because of it. That's a compromise our founders considered and rejected.
A totalitarian state can provide its subjects physical security. But that's not the American way.
Freedom is more important than security.
Judicial oversight of warrants, for one. The protection that any wiretapping be done with specific cause and not arbitrarily, for another.
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.