Posted on 12/17/2005 8:09:19 AM PST by joinedafterattack
Bush Raps Senators on Blocking Patriot Act
By JENNIFER LOVEN
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday that senators who are blocking renewal of the terrorism-fighting Patriot Act are acting irresponsibly and standing in the way of protecting the country from attack.
President Bush said Saturday that senators who are blocking renewal of the terrorism-fighting Patriot Act are acting irresponsibly and standing in the way of protecting the country from attack.
"In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment," the president said in a live broadcast from the White House of his weekly radio address.
Senate Democrats, with the aid of a handful of Republicans, succeeded Friday in stalling the bill already approved by the House. The vote to advance the measure, 52-47, fell eight votes shy of the 60 votes required to end debate.
"That decision is irresponsible and it endangers the lives of our citizens. The senators who are filibustering must stop their delaying tactics and the Senate must reauthorize the Patriot Act," Bush said.
Opponents of renewing the law, most of whom are Democrats, argue that it threatens constitutional liberties at home.
Most Republicans and other supporters say the act is essential for protecting the country against terrorists. The law was enacted in the aftermath of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Of the 55 Republicans in the Senate, four helped to block its passage while two of the 45 Democrats pushed to pass it.
Some of the most contentious elements of the Patriot Act include powers granted to law enforcement agencies to gain access in secret to library and medical records and other personal data during investigations of suspected terrorist activity.
The law allows the government to conduct roving wiretaps involving multiple phones and to wiretap "lone wolf" terrorists who may operate on their own, without control from a foreign agent or power.
If the law is not renewed, its powers would expire Dec. 31 only for new investigations of people whose criminal activity began after Dec. 31 and who were not associated with anyone who was under investigation before Dec. 31.
The debate over the Patriot Act was fueled anew by a New York Times report that Bush had secretly authorized eavesdropping on individuals in the United States without first gaining permission from the courts.
A service of the Associated Press(AP)
Tell me Bob.. Are you a true conservative? Do you believe in the principles of the constitution?
Do believe in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms? The Right to Self Defence?
Do you believe in your Right to Travel Freely and without constraints wherever you wish in this nation?
Do you believe that You are responsible for your own safety and that of your family, freinds, community, nation?
Do you agree with the idea that you can't carry nail clippers on an airplane in this country?
What does that do for your "attention" to survival, knowing that your own government prohibits you, infringes upon your Right to Keep and Bear the means to Self Defence when you travel ??
If there's another terrorist attack will your attitude change?
If there's another terrorist attack, regardless of the Patriot Act or not, and you realize that Government cannot protect you, and never could, will your Right to Self Defence become more important?
That's Freedom, Bob..
You don't have it, and what little you do have is being taken away a bit at a time, and soon you will have none..
And you still won't be any safer..
Just unarmed.. and still afraid to stand up for your own freedom..
Cowering in a dark corner, compaining about how the government has failed to protect you..
It'll all be your own fault, Bob..
Not the government's, Your fault.
`SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.
`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.
`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--
`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and
`(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
`(b) Each application under this section--
`(1) shall be made to--
`(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or
`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and
`(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
`(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.
`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).
`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.
`(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.
-------------
With that and the stuff from Section 213 I quoted earlier, I don't think it's likely we'll hear about abuses for a good long while.
Thus, my hesitance in expressing my "opinion" as fact until I have verified what I believe to be the case..
I would rather say " I don't know " than make what I know may be an incorrect statement of fact..
I used to, but I've gotten tired of doing it over and over and over..
Now I just refuse to play that game..
I just tell 'em it's "secret".. ;oP~~~
LOL, true, but I've noticed that some around here have started pushing the silly notion that those of us opposed to the Patriot Act can't quote the specific parts with which we have a problem... I find that actually doing so tends to cut them off at the pass. ;)
Nothing has changed - the world has been and will be a dangerous place. America has had and will have enemies foreign and domestic.
The State always seeks for itself more power over the lives of citizens - seeking to turn them into subjects. Our Founding Fathers recognized that tendency of States - hence the Bill of Rights, etc.
How long has the Patriot Act been in effect? Three years? I've seen a list of 9-11 type terrorist attacks that have been foiled because of the Act. Can someone give me a single example of how the powers of the Act have been abused?
No, and such proof is practically impossible to produce, as the Patriot Act is very effective in preventing the production of such evidence, as I pointed out in posts #96 and #102 (in which I quoted from the USA PATRIOT Act itself).
As for your list of 9-11 type terrorist attacks that have been foiled because of the act, care to produce it? I was under the impression that such information was kept "secret" so as not to compromise our resources, seeing as loose lips sink ships...
Oh, and by the way - there is nothing patriotic about supporting the increase of government power to solve society's problems. It doesn't work for poverty and it doesn't work for terror. 9/11 did not magically make the classical Conservative principle that government tends to be an abysmal failure at most things it tries to do suddenly wrong.
1) The President neglected to "clean house" of ALL Clinton appointed political operatives within various federal agencies -- THAT was a HUGE mistake obviously.
2) The President took for granted the RINO-Wing of the GOP --- including the presumption that McCain wouldn't stab him and conservatism in the back. He set the tone for future complacency when he didn't veto CFR.
3) "Compassionate conservatism" is a political failure. Dubya Bush failed to inspire and lead and put both the GOP AND Democrats on notice he had an agenda and vision he'd be willing to fight for (excluding the Iraqi War.)
Actually that "1978" law was a further restriction on Executive Orders and was more than one law..
There were several congressional restrictions placed on presidential orders, declarations, and executive orders during the 1970's..
That group of laws restricted the President to utilizing his/her executive powers only in the event of a "national emergency" ...
I highlighted that for effect..
Now you know why "everything" seems to be a national emergency...
It's the operative phrase for utilization of executive orders and other presidential declarations..
Now for some basics..
I hope this scares you as much as it scares me..
Presidential executive orders allow the executive branch, i.e., the President, to enact whatever laws, regulations, procedures etc. that he/she wishes to, in order to fullfill the duties of "running the nation" and all other attendant duties.. ( my basic description )
The only thing holding the president back, is the orders he/she issues must be either constitutional, or already law as legislated by congress, in some form or other..
In other words, there has to be a "legal basis" for the executive order, but not much of one..
As for congress, while it has the powers and authority to block an order or declaration, it very rarely exercises that power..
John, you're probably more correct than I was in assuming that a full legislative act of congress is required to block an executive order..
With one exception, which is referring the disputed executive order to the federal courts..
Except, the courts rarely contest executive orders either..
I found some interesting history of the Executive Order at the Cato Institute's site..
here's a couple of URL's if you're interested in doing some reading concerning the full history of executive orders.. ( It starts with George.. Washington.. Yeah, right from day one, to the present... )
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-wo102799.html
This is regular web page, I think..
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-358es.html
This one contains some .pdf (acrobat) files bottom of the page.. the first one is the best.. Full history there...
Hope this answers some of the questions, it will probably raise even more...
Like I said, it's really "scary"..
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Great find... scary stuff.
A President who does everything he can to save our asses is getting screwed by the media and even his own party in the senate.
Now, in order to save us after the next attack, he will be forced to declare martial law which is the original Constitution of the U.S. Do you want that? Illegal aliens by law are going to be shot on sight. Border traffic and airlines are going to become militarized. Oh, and illegal aliens in our prisons are going to be hung.
Surveillance on a person guilty of no crime does an injury to that person. This was a basic theme of George Orwell's 1984. In a free society, individuals do not have to worry about being under the government's watchful eye, scrutinizing everything they do.
Under that reasoning, if the government has run surveillance on innocent individuals, it has done them harm, even if they are unaware of that surveillance. Now, can I produce proof that such has occurred? No, I cannot, but such is due to laws embedded within the Patriot Act, which I have quoted in post #96 and post #102. It would be virtually impossible to put forth the "proof" you seek, and yet such does not mean it has not happened.
Maybe you can explain how the provisions I have quoted in my two posts do not prevent disclosures of abuses of government power. I would like to be enlightened on the matter.
I'm sorry, but supporting another attack on American soil in order to "open people's eyes" is sick.
Although the President might declare martial law, he certainly wasn't FORCED to do so, and in doing so he, along with all who support him, will have betrayed everything that has made the United States of America free, good, and deserving of our support.
Government power does not solve our problems. Even the problems we face now in the form of terrorism are ultimately the consequences of government "solutions" that have been imposed in the Middle East for the past half of a century. I am more afraid of overly empowered governments, even our own, than I am of terrorists.
That doesn't make me stupid. That makes me a conservative.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
I DO NOT support an attack upon America. I simply stated that's what it will take for people to pay attention again. The lambs were coaxed into a stupor the last 4 years. That is what I meant.
Okay. Maybe, for example, Rush should just consent to let the government examine his medical records. If he has done nothing to hide, why should it bother him?
The problem is that surveillance becomes a matter of interpretation. Those that watch you are also simultaneously attempting to interpret your actions and, if they deem you "suspicious" (a purely subjective standard), they report you for further investigation. That is not freedom. Free people should not have to worry about how their actions and what they will say will be interpretted by the government. Our rights don't hinge on the government's say-so, but are, rather, granted by God.
But if some one does plan to do something to harm other people and this process this country, he can be intercepted before his plans can come to fruition. 3,000 people would be alive today we could have watched the 9/11 terrorists in the manner I described.
What proof, exactly, do we have that the Patriot Act would have prevented 9/11? What proof do we have that, had the government been a bit more diligent under existing laws, that the disaster wouldn't have been diverted? It is easy to overlook the fact that, had the passengers on the planes known that they were going to be crashed into the twin towers and the Pentagon, they most likely would have taken control of the plane themselves. That in itself would prevent similar attacks from happening in the future.
Did 9/11 overrule the basic, fundamental conservative principle that the government does not serve as an effective means to solve society's problems? I keep asking this throughout the threads I have been on lately, but I still have yet to receive a satisfactory response to this question. Instead, I bump into individuals who seem to have this notion, at the root of their thoughts, that this traditionally Democratic idea that the government, if we just give it enough power, can somehow solve our problems, and that somehow THIS is the "mature" approach in a post-9/11 world. If one holds this view, they might as well just come out and state that traditional conservatism is dead.
Under the Patriot Act, it would have been possible to take them into custody the moment we learned what they were up to.
By that reasoning, we ought to just apply the Patriot Act to all crime. Suspending the 4th amendment in all criminal cases will enable us to take criminals into custody without the messy burden of proving them to be criminals and will save us a lot of work. We can call it the "War on Crime".
If we prohibit passive surveillance as a tool out of a paranoid fear people's civil liberties will be compromised, the simple truth is a lot more people will die because the government doesn't have that tool.
I suppose that the Founding Fathers of this country were a bit paranoid because they thought a little tax on tea were an impediment on their liberties.
I suppose that I would rather have "paranoid fear" of my God-given freedoms being violated than to give up my right not to have my every action scrutinized by law enforcement officials under the "paranoid fear" that another terrorist attack is just around the corner. Remember those constant, weekly terrorist attacks on American soil that culminated in the destruction that was 9/11, that were quickly ended by the implimentation of the Patriot Act? Neither do I.
I can't think of anything more irresponsible and if there's one thing above all that the Constitution doesn't stand for - is that its not a suicide pact.
It is "irresponsible" to refuse to embrace the fairy tale that if we just give the government enough power, it will solve all of our problems? That type of talk was, at one time, the sole venue of Democrats. It saddens me to hear respectable conservative Republicans uttering such words.
By the way, the Constitution is at loggerheads with many of the provisions being pushed forward currently. If that means the Constitution, as it is, is the equivalent of a suicide pact, then you'd better vote to repeal it.
FRIST: The conference report to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act includes all of these provisions and goes further to strengthen and improve America's security. It enhances vital safeguards to protect our civil liberties and privacy, and it contains new provisions to combat terrorist financing and money laundering, to protect our mass transportation systems and railways from attacks such as the ones on the London subway last summer, secure our seaports, and fight methamphetamine drug abuse, America's No. 1 drug problem.Mash here -> 190th Congress - Senate - Dec. 16, 2005
Navigate to: 6 . THE PATRIOT ACT
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.