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 ...
according to those (pretend to be conservatives) who lack argument, everytime you disagree with them, you must be a soros or du clone.
You left out all the rubber stuff and tires, etc. I can see you're upset and just not in an agreeable mood.
The important fact is that this is a filibuster. It's basically the minority party blocking it. There is a majority of Senators ready to sign the bill, but it was killed by the minority. They can shift the light on the handful of Republicans all they want. The blood will still be on the hands of the Democrat leaders in the Senate.
Well the simple answer is he has to sell it because they have failed so far to pass it.
I'm beginning to sense a lack of sincerity, maturity and even clarity in a couple of folks here.
Actually you could not be more wrong about these so called rules. The admisinstration did not create any of these 'rules'. They are tenants well grounded in law, based on a decision of the Federal Courts in 'U.S. vs. Truong' and in two court cases that went before the Foriegn Intelligence Surveilance Court of Appeals, Yes, the court also has an appeals court that can and does review FISA Court decisions. Those cases are 02-001 and 02-002.
I would highly recommend reading the decision briefs and also Jabara v. Webster (1984).
In short if dimwit A an american citizen, calls dimwit B a Yemeni national, and says he wants to blow up the Rayburn Building. Then you better believe that the NSA has every legal right to intercept that call and turn the contents of the call over to the FBI, all without a warrant.
And that has been the law of the land for over 20 years.
The Japanese internment was race and ethnic specific. BTW, some Germans were also interred.
My original question was far broader and wider than your pathetic answer. I replied solely to you answer, in the context of the original query. Since you are unable to understand the original question AND my reply to your answer, I suggest that you not reply to posts you don't understand/topics you don't know very much about. And please get some help with reading comprehension.
"When you finally manage to learn how to write a complete sentence, get back to me."
"NP, that's several times you've attacked TNP for his/her writing. Mistakes happen. You're a fine one to be exacting grammatical correctness when you blew it so badly in #198 then scolded TNP for spelling in #200. Grammar is as important a part of the command of English as is spelling, you know. Being a hypocrite isn't nice."
typos happen...and I like to keep it short like nonpardons
Even if every single Republican was with us on this, the Dems would win.
Why?
WE WOULD NOT HAVE 60 VOTES.
While these 4 are scumbags, they are not deciding vote scumbags. They are just adding to the problem.
Even with them, there is no way to win this. No way at all.
You have really proven to be only a disruptor. You don't answer questions you have been asked. Nancy, it's time for your next Botox treatment and nighty nite....
Do you really enjoy making yourself look foolish? WHY?
That's four more people the NSA needs to be listening in on.
"You're wrong about Section 802. All conditions of that section have to apply to be considered a terrorist."{
I want to believe that. Can you show us were it says all those conditions must apply? Just give us the section under 802 where this policy is explained.
The president has inherent powers that Congress can't strip. And the reverse (not applicable here, IMO) is that Congress can pass laws that exceed the Constitution -- and then the law doesn't ultimately justify executive action.
Trust the system a bit. It can't be perfect, but it'll sort out okay over time, provided the people are sufficiently independent.
Not really - only the "appear to be intended--" needs to be true.
The Patriot Act has sunset rules, even in this reaffirmation of it.
Did you know anyone, ANYONE, who was murdered on 9/11? Do you even care, at all, that because of the PA, planned attacks were killed off, before they could be carried out? Do you just want to go back to how things were before, with Gorelick's WALL in place?
Stop worrying about my "jets" and worry about your own positions.
"LOL...I don't blame you. I think that I am done with this as well.
MERRY CHROISTMAS!"
Little doubt the losers are "done with this."
and it's MERRY CHRISTMAS! btw
unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), I did not see anything in your posting of 802 that would invite any tyrant in government to make protesting a terrorist act.
not to disagree with your overall premise, in that the Reno' Justice Department sure as heck tried to make Abortion Clinic protesting a terrorist act under RICO.
I use the spell check function and my grammar is just fine.
Why don't you mind your own beeswax; pet? :-)
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.