Skip to comments.4 GOP Senators Hold Firm Against Patriot Act Renewal
Posted on 12/20/2005 6:58:23 PM PST by ncountylee
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) could barely conceal his anger.
"The Patriot Act expires on December 31, but the terrorist threat does not," he told reporters at the Capitol yesterday. "Those on the Senate floor who are filibustering the Patriot Act are killing the Patriot Act."
There was just one problem. Well, four problems, actually. Four of the 46 senators using the delaying tactic to thwart the USA Patriot Act renewal are members of Frist's party. It is a pesky, irritating fact for Republicans who are eager to portray the impasse as Democratic obstructionism, and a ready-made rejoinder for Democrats expecting campaign attacks on the issue in 2006 and 2008.
The four Republican rebels -- Larry E. Craig (Idaho), Chuck Hagel (Neb.), John E. Sununu (N.H.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) -- have joined all but two Senate Democrats in arguing that more civil liberties safeguards need to be added to the proposed renewal of the Patriot Act.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Let's take their two and send these four packing.
Bob Hayes, first plane in to the tower, his liberties?
The Patriot act ought to have a sunset provision. If it does not, then I am against it.
Are these four ready to take personal responsibility for the next terrorist attack that may occur as a result of not renewing the Patriot Act?
Some American's blood will be on their (RINOs + Dems) hands...and I'll bet you a thousand dollars to doughnuts, they don't give a rat's behind.
It does. That's why it needs to be renewed now!
4 senators do not make an obstruction persay, 42 senators do.
What's the difference between the Patriot Act and a Senator?
Senators don't have term limits.
From NRO corner...........
PATRIOT ACT POLLING [Ramesh Ponnuru]
A new CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll finds that only 34 percent of the public thinks that the Patriot Act goes too far. Sixty-two percent approve of it (44 percent) or think it doesn't go far enough (18 percent).
Now, if we could convince AlQaida to restrict their attack planning to Idaho, Nebraska, New Hampshire and Alaska, the rest of us could breath eash.
Craig is one of the most conservative members of the Senate.
What is going on in HIS mind?
I'm sure they are, if the shortcoming can be traced to the difference between law in effect. But the government has an obligation to use a vigorous defense.
For example, President Bush has the gravitas to go beyond FISA in conducting warrantless sureveillance of communications that involves known terrorists. That sort of mind-set does not depend on Congress. Likewise with data sharing, the court cases are squarley in favor of data sharing, and don't depend on Congressional action.
No. The Patriot should have NO sunset provision and should be made permanent. The debate all along should not have been about extending it but making it permanent.
If that is the case, then he either lost his mind, or was bribed; take your choice.
Well, in the first place they're Senators, which means they aren't responsible for anything that happens. But I'm going to say I'm a little leery of the Patriot Act myself; make it strong, make it permanent and in ten years everything the government wants to investigate will be 'terrorism'.
GOP turncoats provide cover for the dims.
Maybe Bush will correct this, we'll see. No excuse for the Senators, but this is the way it works. You have to either put a carrot in front of them or a good steady kick to the rear.
What I don't understand is that if there were all these abuses, where is the evidence??? I have seen zero evidence of any normal cotizens being abused by the NSA or HSD. The RINO's really are scum.
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.