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 ...
We have kind of gone full circle on this thread. A number of people have expressed this concern. The question that can't seem to get answered is, what is it about the act that causes your concern? Is there a particular section, provision, what? All the concern seems to be based on a number of things other than the act itself. That is all I'm trying to get at.
I'm very happy for your opinion on the Patriot Act. I also would be concerned, as you seem to to be "not to enact bad law just to be do something."
I have every hope that the President will not enact law just to "be do" something. In fact, I know it.
I am trying to understand the Patriot Act better myself. Not many Freepers have the time or the legal training to read the Patriot Act in its entirety and properly understand it so I would appreciate any reading any analysis that has been done.
Is there anything in the Patriot Act that would concern you if a socialist or internationalist became president and wanted to silence political descent? I'm not saying there is, it is a serious question that I don't have the answer to.
Nice Try :) See Posts 127,181,246,259 and 309 of this thread for my take on the PA and more.
Merry Christmas and God Bless.
His signature on CFR seems to contradict this belief. He stated that he had concerns but he signed it anyway since something had to be done.
Did the administration write the Patriot Act or did congress? I am aware that congress is responsible for drafting legislation, but it is not uncommon for administrations to craft the bills.
S'matter? Your George Soros' media buy not getting the message out? Hmmmm. Try Baba Streisand, I hear she's having a lean Christmas season. Why I've even seen some some old B&W ads for her decades olds TV specials being run on late night cable. Talk about sad SACKS!
Is there anything in the Patriot Act that would concern you if a socialist or internationalist became president and wanted to silence political descent?
Couldn't the same be said about most laws? We probably all break laws every day without even knowing it. The President, whoever it is, is not a dictator or tyrant. The potential for oppression is there already. Is this a reason to discount our security? Like I said earlier, it all depends how much, if any liberty we give up and how much security we get in return. I don't know the answer. That's why I'm asking the question. My concern is that every one who seems to be telling me the PA is a bad thing can't tell me why.
I don't think that those 4 is enough. Isn't the Senate 55 to 45?
Paul, the infraction was just being on that street corner. Remember all activities are now terrorism. I've got a copy of it here in my "Patriot Act for Dummies" cheat sheet.
:)
What on God's Green earth are you talking about? I support your position and you attack me? Albeit i do have reservations but for pete's sake please tell me you didn't read my posts.
"All the concern seems to be based on a number of things other than the act itself."
Section 802 is the first area of debate which was offered here tonight.
There are many more to come. But if this is an example of the debate regarding the provisions of the PA, then surely we all get what we deserve..and there is simply nothing left to debate.
Stop it. I'm trying to be series
I agree with you. I would like to understand the specifics.
OK. We've been down this road but let's try once more. What is it about 802 that troubles you. Let's narrow it down if we can.
Is section 802 the only section that the reasonable Democrats and the 4 Republicans have a problem with?
TNP, I'm assuming that you actually thought you were posting the entire part of Section 802.
Where did you get that edited version of 802?
You don't shut down "debate" that easily.
We don't know that. The only thing I know so far is this is the first thing takeno has a problem with. I am trying to find out why.
Section 802 creates a category of crime called "domestic terrorism," penalizing activities that "involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States," if the actor's intent is to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."
I'm sure this has been covered before, but is there a consensus on whether the above statement is valid?
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.