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 ...
In examining what is defined as domestic terrorism and the specific acts noted, what is the problem here?
We took a cruise to Alaska this year and I kept thinking about being a target out there for terrorists. Alaska is the most popular cruise destination today. Lisa will have a lotta explaining to do if or when it happens to one of these ships!
"Is section 802 the only section that the reasonable Democrats and the 4 Republicans have a problem with?"
The only reasonable demo I know is Lieberman...he should switch parties.
But to answer your question, no, there are many more sections of the Act that are questionable. I only offered 802 here tonight as a beginner series. You know the rest of the story.
From doing some (very quick) research on section 802, I'm guessing that it is geared to stop groups like ELF which endanger lives in their quest to change public policy.
In theory, I can see where a group like Greenpeace could get caught in the net if one of their protests could be construed as "endangering a life".
I don't think it is all that bad from what I read as long as "endangering a life" is taken literally.
What is your take on section 505? I went to Slate.com to get an idea of how civil libertarians view the act.
Section 505 authorizes the use of what's essentially an administrative subpoena of personal records. The subpoenas require no probable cause or judicial oversight.
While few Americans seem to be getting exercised over Section 505, it's actually a good deal scarier than 215—the angry librarian provision—in some ways. Why? Because there is no check on the attorney general's discretion, not even a toothless judge. Add to this the government's refusal to disclose how these letters have been used, and there are some grounds for paranoia over this provision.
I'm trying to see it but it's not happening. After 300 posts, it seems to me if there was some there there, it would have arisen by now. I'm going to sleep.
Good!
I don't want to take this thread off topic, but whenever I see your screen name, I will always think....."Do you hear the people sing?" A specific moment in time of our history, that is very worth marking.
With section 802 I think you are probably right. The only concern would be if "endangering a life" could be twisted.
I'm not an attorney and if someone can correct me fine, but I believe this is already possible via a grand jury anyhow.
I told the woman who answered that I was outraged to hear ABC radio news announcing the senator had led Republican opposition to renewing the Patriot Act, that it gave aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war, that it thwarted our efforts to prevent another domestic terror attack, and thereby endangered national security.
She promptly launched into a canned schpiel to wit the senator was only delaying a vote in order to "strengthen" the Patriot Act.
At which point I remarked, "I'm not listening to this line of crap. Good bye."
To "strengthen" it?
And Senator Craig voted for the Patriot Act before he voted against it.
Merry Christmas to all except the fifth column whom I wish Merry Leavenworth.
A grand jury still involves the judicial process. From what I understand, section 505 FBI field offices can do this without a warrant or any other judicial process.
Hi back at you sister! I see you around here, but I am out on the northwest coast now, on a island, living the life, so I don't get in on lots of chats on ATRW much. I love Les Mis and we have worn out 2 sets of the CDs. I chose the name when I signed up as I had just finished Stephen Ambrose's book and it just fit at the time of the impeachment of Bill Clinton!Ping me sometime and Merry Christmas!
Probable cause? Judicial oversight? That was your concern
I was specifically thinking of the moment when the young RNP'ers during the recount in 2000 in Florida started banging on the door. IIRC, (and maybe I don't) you started posted the lyrics to that song. And I've always remembered the moment that way.
Yeah, there seems to be some real 4th amendment concerns with that section. From what I understand, it has been ruled unconstitutional in district court but has been appealed.
Oh yeah, what a time that was. I read Barbara Bush's book that ended up to her son in office and she mentioned that her daughte Dorie put on a wig and went down to the VP house in DC and stood out there with freepers incognito shouting get out of Cheney's house. Cool, huh?
Very cool. I read that book!
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.