4 GOP Senators Hold Firm Against Patriot Act Renewal

Washington Post ^ | Charles Babington | Charles Babington

[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.

[SierraWasp]

Read your own tagline!!!

[freema]

bookmarking...

[A Citizen Reporter]

Sorry, Nancy, I ask you first.

What liberties have you lost? What are you decrying?

[SierraWasp]

I think you are largely correct!!!

[paul51]

How about answering the question before you pose a new one. What liberties and where?

To answer your your question, it depends on how much, if any, liberty and how much security. You will be somewhere between wise and foolish

[takenoprisoner]

respond to section 802 of the PA or sit down and shut up. folks asked what we were talking about. I give you all 802 of the PA and not a single one in favor giving up their liberty for security has responded to 802 of the PA...including you and Paul51. What's the problem. Deal with the issue.

[azhenfud]

Wow, what a lame repose.

[nopardons]

Which did NOT last past the end of the war!

There was rationing, there were all kinds of other "infringements" of "liberties", as well. Are they all still with us? NO, they are not!

Not really all that familiar with much American history, are you.

[takenoprisoner]

just checking on you with and I

[logician2u]

If it were an honest poll, they would have first asked the respondents what P.A.T.R.I.O.T. means.

If they can't even define it, they have no business passing judgment on it.

[ndt]

"Which did NOT last past the end of the war!"

But you think it's OK to put large numbers of law abiding citizens in prison for an indeterminant amount of time during periods of war?

[SierraWasp]

That's exactly like asking him to prove a negative!!!

[paul51]

SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM. (a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping'; (2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and'; (3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and (4) by adding at the end the following: `(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that-- `(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; `(B) appear to be intended-- `(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; `(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or `(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and `(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'. (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 3077(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: `(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331;'.

Just so I know what you would like me to respond to, your problem with this section is?

[A Citizen Reporter]

"But you think it's OK to put large numbers of law abiding citizens in prison for an indeterminant amount of time during periods of war?"

Don't tell me that George Soro's has you thinking that this is what is happening today?

[takenoprisoner]

read section 802 for starters and explain it to us all.

thank you in advance our most valued dementiated one.

[nopardons]

You don't own FR, you have no control over what others post. This thread is NOT about section 802 of the Patriot Act , and if that is the ONLY thing YOU wish to discuss, start your own thread; just make certain to post it to chat.

You refuse to answer anyone's questions; yet, you demand that others respond to what you want to talk about and nothing else. You call people names, you tell them to shut up and to leave, and are attempting to high jack this thread.

You have been here long enough to know the rules, but you have no regard for them.

Being a bloviating blowhard, doesn't make you much of anything but a bloviating blowhard.

What's the problem , you feel threatened and/or confused b y anything other than your own thoughts?

[SierraWasp]

Recycling is still with us in spades!!!

Most of it is just plain stupid!!!

[ndt]

"Don't tell me that George Soro's has you thinking that this is what is happening today?"

No, not at all. I was replying to a question from nopardons regarding infringement of liberties during WWI and WWII

[nopardons]

It was in response to an extremely lame post. What did you expect...Shakespearean prose? LOL

[FreeReign]

Section 802 `(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

`(B) appear to be intended--

`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

So there will be no protestations because anyone found to be protesting can be defined as a domestic terrorist according to this brief.

Just for starters: Do you think that all protesters protest using dangerous acts that are illegal?