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)
I am really sorry if I misinterpretted you - I certainly don't want to accuse anyone of desiring such a thing if it is not what they meant.
I do believe, however, that many, myself included, overreacted in the aftermath of 9/11, especially when it came to the Patriot Act (a 300+ page document that was pushed forward without so much as a debate). I don't consider opposing the broadening of government power to be a "lamb mindset" so much as a matter of conviction. In fact, I believe, quite the opposite, that the "lamb mindset" lays in people's desire to "let the government protect them" like a good shepherd. I also believe that it was this mindset that led to 9/11.
At any rate, sorry again for misinterpretting you.
I feel like Rush now, having to explain myself about what to me seems blatently clear.
What? Those terrorists lived in Florida with various ID's before hijacking those planes! I will OVERREACT every time MY life is at stake. Are YOU prepared to bow down to them and let your head get cut off????
Ah yes, I forgot about those cases...
The fact is, though, that many who want proof of "abuses" will be the same that will ultimately support such usages as being side benefits of the Patriot Act when that becomes the official line.
Really sad stuff...
If the alternative option is to bow down and "trust" the government, to entrust in it powers going far beyond its original limits that can ultimately be turned on citizens if the usage of that power is simply "framed" properly, and to believe that an empowered government can REALLY solve problems?
I'll take my chances with the terrorists. A wise man once said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." But I guess he was just a sucker living in a 9/10 mindset.
Like I said, "abuse" is indefinite. The examples noted were thought to be excessive by those involved, but the investigators thought the action was appropriate. Was there abuse? Not according to the officials. Was WACO an abuse? Not according to the law, some of the Davidians remain incarcerated.
Most of the sunsetting provisions of the Patriot Act have parallel statutes or legal support that does not sunset. The "gap" that would exist on sunset isn't all that big.
"Although the President might declare martial law, he certainly wasn't FORCED to do so"
Oh yes he is. Read the OATH he took before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court upon assuming office.
I thought the oath he took was to uphold the US Constitution. I didn't know that entailed declaring Martial Law in the event of a terrorist attack, effectively turning his back on the Constitution to save it...
When will the leaks stop.
When they start trying people for treason, and punishing them accordingly.
How about enemies that are either foreign or domestic?
I believe that is in process. I also believe these leaks are coming from people who were kicked out. Bush isn't a dummy. I am sure the inspector generals of the CIA, NSA, FBI, DIA were given an order to clean up their rooms.
Governments rule solely by the consent of the governed. No one who values freedom ought to consent to rule by military law, which, by its very nature, stands in direct contradiction to the very premises of freedom. Martial law, in fact, is big government at its finest. To see it as a viable solution ultimately comes down to that notion I keep repeating, namely the idea that if we could JUST give the government enough power, it will make all of our woes just magically disappear.
Martial law will do even less to solve this terror problem than the Patriot Act does. This country has always had enemies foreign and domestic - they didn't just suddenly appear on 9/11, and we survived quite well prior to then without expanding police powers. I find it a tad disturbing that traditional advocates of limited government haven't stopped to ask themselves whether the laws and regulations that were in place on 9/11 were followed to the fullest extent before jumping to the conclusion that we suddenly needed to vastly expand government power in these areas. But, I suppose the fact that the current administration has a little "(R)" next to it means that it couldn't have possibly have made some mistakes...
Many others have said it and I'll say it now - if it were "President Gore" that pushed for these same exact measures in the wake of 9/11, virtually everyone who is in support of the Patriot Act would be standing with those of us that support it, simply on the very principle of the matter. It seems so easy to forget at times that the little (R) next to a politician's name doesn't magically make him a good guy - he's still a politician!
The domestic enemies we ought to fear most aren't those that can blow us up with bombs, but rather those that can systematically strip us of our freedoms.
Love the timing of the NY Slimes../sar Pinch and Punch gets my vote for number one in the effort to screw up America
The lefties are terrified that the cash flow from foriegn entities will be discovered. We are not concerned with the wacko's, most are identified. Its the cash to fund these efforts thats the concern.
Sheehan is on her world tour to raise money.
And OTOH another wise man once said "the Constitution is not a suicide pact."
My mother lived through WWII in SoCal, where the Japs fired to the shoreline around Ventura/Santa Barbara. They were targeting oil fields.
She also told of the blackouts because they feared Japanese planes flying over Los Angeles, to bomb us here.
So back then, the citizens "gave up their freedom" by turning their lights out, as ordered by the government.
And that same government rounded up SOME Japanese (and Italian and German) origin folks.
It is more easy for me to understand things, when I climb out of a philosophical/hypothetical box, and study the world and history around me.
So just like the SoCal people turning their lights off during WWII, I am willing to subordinate myself, to a reasonable degree, for the safety of my countrymen.
Some may feel an even higher priority is laying claim to some title of the most conservative among conservatives, like it is a badge worthy of adulation, even if that means death.
I'm heading to bed right now and am exhausted from debating a similar subject on a different thread, but I thought it wouldn't be right to go without giving at least some response to your posts.
I don't believe the Constitution to be a suicide pact. I suppose that proceeds from my belief that a free people can overcome any obstacle it faces without stepping on the freedoms it cherishes. I believe true freedom and true security to ultimately be completely complimentary. I don't believe that to be an easy principle to implement by any means, but I do believe it to be true.
I don't argue for the things I argue simply because I want to be deemed the most conservative among conservatives. I speak what is on my mind because I think it is right and worth saying, the same as you or anyone else here. At the end of the day, I tend to enjoy the overall debate (well, in small doses... I don't always have the energy!).
At any rate, I enjoyed our debate, but now I must hit the sack. :)
Given the number of Bush haters in DC and the media, I'm sure we'd have heard loudly of any abuse long ago and often. Don't try to spin me a fairy tail of secret government coverups in an age when the CIA is openly running operations to destabilize our own government, and when the disloyal opposition delights in cheerleading for the enemy. Perhaps you can blow smoke up someone's posterior orifice, but not mine.
I'm no fan of big government, but I am a die-hard fan of the one thing the federal government is supposed to do and does do very well if you can keep Democrats from hamstringing them and their communication wing, the media, from selling them out--that's defending the country.
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.