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)
What is your solution to illegal immigration.
I here the same people against the patriot act against illegals. How are you going to deport illegals without the possibility of going after an american citizen.
Can't have it both ways. If you don't want govt then you can't complain about them not stopping illegals.
I don't blame the president for an attack that might occur in the future - I blame the individual terrorists that commit the act. I don't believe in enlarging government power to keep me safe. That betrays the very essence of that for which the Founding Fathers of this country fought.
Terror, for the most part, was dealt with just fine before the Patriot Act came along. Unfortunately, bad (sometimes awful!) things happen. 9/11 happened. Who is to say that the Patriot Act would have stopped it? Even with the Patriot Act in place, we have lived in a state of fear for the past four years that it would fail in some way!
To allow fear to dictate the course of one's actions is not to be free. In a free society, we have to accept the fact that criminal acts happen. "Freedom" is not just a nice sounding word we throw around to make ourselves feel good, but rather represents a certain state of existence that recognizes that the government does not solve all our problems. Freedom IS freedom from the government. If you enlarge the power and authority of the government believing it will solve your problems, you cannot help but kill freedom eventually.
That's funny, I don't hear the Bush Administration offering any solution to the immigration problem...
You know, though, I was under the impression that the Patriot Act is only supposed to apply to terrorists. Now you are telling me that it also applies to illegal immigrants? Who else does it apply to - are you going to justify turning it against any and all crimes that occur within this nation?
Sounds like you're treading down a dangerous path...
If you want to curb illegal immigration, concentrate on closing the borders by sending more troops down there, not by increasing government powers of surveillance that can potentially be turned on the rest of us...
Perhaps, but who's to say that we wouldn't have been better served allowing the market to take its course?
Government doesn't solve problems. It does tend to create them. 9/11 didn't change that, nor will any terrorist attack.
Yup. Who'da thunk it. People on a conservative website calling for the dismantling of the Bill of Rights.
I'm not comfortable with the partial revocation of any of the Bill of Rights, sunset provision or not. As with CFR, if they want to partially revoke an Amendment, they can do so by either passing a new Constitutional Amendment or by declaring martial law. That's it.
Constitution bars federal troops on our borders.
I didn't mean the patriot act had to do with illegals. I said the same people against spying on al queda overseas to the u.s are saying they are against big govt. But they want big govt against to fight illegals.
This wiretap is tracing al queda overseas with communication to the u.s. If you are interacting with al queda overseas you have no right to civil liberties. CIA agents are catching terrorists overseas and taking numbers on their cell phones and listening to the conversations.
Why should any law abiding american be worried about the cia intercepting a call between an al queda caught overseas and their contacts here in america. Unless you are mohammed atta or his followers you have nothing to worry about.
Only the dems who are so worried about these terrorists getting a fair trial would care.
Slowly sliding across the line? I'd say it's been about as slow as the last lap of the Indy 500.
How does the CIA catching a muslum terrorist overseas and wiretapping the numbers in his cell phone affect your rights.
I highly highly doubt you are having contacts with the likes of mohammed atta in pakistan.
I can't see this having an effect on you. But if you think it does then we disagree.
What else do you want.
The patriot act is now history.
No more detaining padilla without a trial.
No more aggressive terrorist interrogation tactics.
No more wiretaps.
No more renditions.
No more secret prisons in europe.
We have less anti terror laws than before 9/11. Heck you can even carry a knife on a plane again. What else do you want.
It is amazing that the critics of these anti terrorist measures win by having them go away and they still aren't happy.
"I can live with the Patriot Act as long as those laws are not made permanent..
They are only justified in the face of an imminent threat, and once that threat is ended, the Patriot Act must sunset..."
WTC I to WTC II spanned eight years (1993 - 2001).
Munich Olympics to London Busses spanned 33 years (1972 - 2005).
It all depends on the meaning of "imminent threat." Many of us have come to the opinion that islam is an "imminent threat."
Concerning the Patriot Act--there have not been any significant abuses.
That sort of depends on what you or I consider "significant".. and abuse is still abuse, whether you consider it significant or not..
I see. Personally, I think that the problem with illegals would be best taken care of if law enforcement officials would just enforce the laws we already have on the books.
This wiretap is tracing al queda overseas with communication to the u.s. If you are interacting with al queda overseas you have no right to civil liberties. CIA agents are catching terrorists overseas and taking numbers on their cell phones and listening to the conversations.
Innocence until guilt is proven is not a mere civil liberty but a full-fledged human right. The logic you are advocating is the equivalent to what happened during the witch trials, where association with a suspected witch was proof enough that one was likely a witch as well. This logic that terrorists ought to be detained without trials, stripped of even essential human rights treads down a dark path.
That is not a matter of supporting terrorists, but rather a matter of supporting the innocents that might be accused of terrorism. Or do you believe that the government is ALWAYS right when it comes to slapping that label on people?
Why should any law abiding american be worried about the cia intercepting a call between an al queda caught overseas and their contacts here in america. Unless you are mohammed atta or his followers you have nothing to worry about.
Because human rights are not contingent upon government recognition of them. The rights delineated in the Bill of Rights are God-given. They are mine regardless of whether the government wants to recognize them or not. A man has the right to live his life without worry of some government official in some distant office scrutinizing his every movement. Read Orwell's 1984. The very notion that the government has a right to the authority to watch law abiding citizens is an impediment to true freedom. It turns out that in a free society, the government has NO rights. We, as individuals, on the other hand, do.
Only the dems who are so worried about these terrorists getting a fair trial would care.
No. Only decent people that truly believe in freedom and God-granted human liberty care. Just because the government says someone is a terrorist doesn't make it so. The burden of proof upon the government to show that a person is actually a terrorist still remains.
If some Democrats embrace decent, reasonable principles for once, more power to them. Shame on the Republicans for allowing the Democrats to do their work for them.
Actually, must of the Patriot Act still remains in place.
There are only 16 provisions that are set to sunset, if I am not mistaken.
(The rest should go too, IMHO. In the long run, government power exists at the detriment of a free society.)
Most of the Patriot Act...
I need to learn to do better proofreading.
I'm not comfortable with it either..
But I'm a pragmatist as well..
It's there, chances are something will be agreed to..
There are enough democrats that understand the Patriot Act, as permanent law, will eventually be theirs to invoke.. and abuse to their advantage..
Their present opposition is a ploy..
They will present themselves as opposed, protecting the civil rights of american citizens..
Some "minor" wording will be changed..
The bill will pass..
Once there is a change in administrations, the laws will be re-interpreted and applied to the detriment of every citizen..
I would rather there was no Patriot Act at all..
But if there must be one, let's keep the devil we know, and retain it with existing sunset provisions..
It will still be almost impossible to get rid of, but it will be legally "temporary"...
Democrats for your rights are you kidding.
John Kerry calling the NRA terrorists.
The dems are only against this because it is Bush.
They are for a three month extension so they really are just playing politics.
Dems did a great job in Waco with your rights.
This love for the democrat party on this site is unreal. The leader of the dems dean calls anyone a racist that doesn't like illegals.
The dems bash you for being religious real freedoms.
If you replaced the name Bush with Clinton, everybody here would be cheering the defeat of the Patriot Act.
Don't misinterpret me. I never said Democrats are for anyone's rights. The point is that even broken clocks are right twice a day, and in this case the Dems were supporting something every Freedom-loving Republican should have been behind.
I agree that it was for the wrong reasons. But let's look at this reasonably - the whole idea behind the Patriot Act is that the government, when empowered, can solve society's problems. In this case, advocates of the Patriot Act are stating that the government can somehow end terrorism. That is the equivalent of saying the government can end poverty.
My point is that, at its core, the Patriot Act is a Democratic big-government approach to the problem, the type of solution that Republicans would unanimously reject simply on principle if a Democrat was in charge (and the Democrats would have LOVED to have President Gore to push this one through, don't mistake me for one minute).
But we, as conservatives, are a people of principle. We might get sidetracked once in a while, but when it comes down to it, we stick by our principles. And the principle that should be closest and dearest to our hearts is that the government has enough trouble fixing a sink, not to mention fixing an age-old problem like terrorism.
Those that so strongly advocate the Patriot Act are far closer to being Democrats than those of us that oppose it will ever be. At least we don't embrace core Democratic principles to try to "fix" problems.
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.