Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

4 GOP Senators Hold Firm Against Patriot Act Renewal
Washington Post ^ | Charles Babington | Charles Babington

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 ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Alabama; US: Idaho; US: Nebraska; US: New Hampshire; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 109th; civiliberties; craig; gop; gwot; hagel; larrycraig; murkowski; nationalsecurity; obstructionistdems; patriotact; sununu; terrorism; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400 ... 441-452 next last
To: paul51
I was referring to those issues with respect to Grand Juries.

With a grand jury, there must some charge that a prosecutor is trying to indict on. A judge is still in charge and determines what is a valid request. Also, in a grand jury setting, a person under subpoena can challenge it.

This is much different as an FBI agent can just send out a letter and demand secrecy.

361 posted on 12/20/2005 11:43:35 PM PST by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta
How does a grand jury get evidence? Grand juries can use the court's power to subpoena evidence. A court can issue a document known as a subpoena (a word which translates, essentially, as "subject to sanction") which commands someone to do something. The subpoenas are actually issued by the court clerk's office. The prosecutor will go to the court clerk's office and obtain blank subpoenas. The prosecutor then fills them in, putting in the name of the person or corporation that is being subpoenaed, and telling them what they have to do (testify or produce documents) and when they have to do it. The prosecutor then has someone--often a police officer or federal marshal--serve the subpoena on the person or corporation.

I believe a person can challenge a request under the PA although I'm not certain and I don't recall the procedure.

362 posted on 12/20/2005 11:49:13 PM PST by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: paul51
I believe a person can challenge a request under the PA although I'm not certain and I don't recall the procedure.

The person's records being subpoenaed will never know that the event happened so he has not chance to challenge. Under the PA, the business or person subpoenaed cannot notify the subject.

In theory the business or person subpoenaed can challenge under the PA, but the power has been found by the court to be illusory as the standard to challenge was set so high under the PA that a challenger could never win.

363 posted on 12/20/2005 11:55:22 PM PST by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: buckeye2159

"in the old days, conservative meant restricting government intrusion into the public's private lives"

Pretty risky in time of war.

My mother's family gladly gave up their freedom to keep the lights on at night in Los Angeles county, during WWII.

Would you argue citizens should have said "hell no" to the government, and burned their lights anyway?

The rights of the many apparently trumped the rights of a few.

I like real world examples.

At the present time, I am asked that my phone be subject to screening, lest I be plotting (over the phone) to murder thousands of my countrymen.


364 posted on 12/20/2005 11:56:00 PM PST by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta

OK. What are the safeguards?


365 posted on 12/20/2005 11:58:11 PM PST by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: truth_seeker
Pretty risky in time of war.

How will we know when this war is over? With WWII we knew when Germans and Japanese surrendered.

366 posted on 12/20/2005 11:59:08 PM PST by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: paul51

It's not clear what you are asking.


367 posted on 12/21/2005 12:00:14 AM PST by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta

BTW, there are probably a few revisions that could be made to section 505 that would make it appealing to all and still retain its anti-terrorism utility.


368 posted on 12/21/2005 12:03:34 AM PST by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta
You said this concerns you. It would concern me to. I'm asking if there are any safeguards against abuse.

How do we know when the war is over? When terrorist stop exploding on a regular basis

I'm out.

369 posted on 12/21/2005 12:03:43 AM PST by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: truth_seeker
"At the present time, I am asked that my phone be subject to screening, lest I be plotting (over the phone) to murder thousands of my countrymen."

Precisely, and I hate to be so blunt about it, but isn't it the people who are already doing illegal things, who are so concerned about what "rights" are going to be taken from them?

370 posted on 12/21/2005 12:03:44 AM PST by A Citizen Reporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: A Citizen Reporter
but isn't it the people who are already doing illegal things, who are so concerned about what "rights" are going to be taken from them?

"If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear".

371 posted on 12/21/2005 12:07:20 AM PST by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

Perhaps the "Sunset Provision" should read "when the war is over" or maybe "when there are no more international terrorists"??? I'm being facetious, but we've always found it necessary to amend personal freedoms during a war.


372 posted on 12/21/2005 12:07:34 AM PST by singfreedom ("Victory at all costs,.......for without victory there is no survival."--Churchill--that's "Winston")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Williams
No. The WH nor the Pres should act as nanny to these four ditz's. They know what the right thing to do is. There's something else going on that we are not privy to. But on the surface - I say dang them to heck. They are toying with my children's security and future. Unforgivable.
373 posted on 12/21/2005 12:08:40 AM PST by daybreakcoming (May God bless those who enter the valley of the shadow of death so that we may see the light of day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
The Patriot act ought to have a sunset provision. If it does not, then I am against it.

It DOES have a sunset clause. But that said, tell me when the jihadist threat will end, and I'll be happy to set an expiration date....

374 posted on 12/21/2005 12:09:40 AM PST by paulat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: singfreedom
erhaps the "Sunset Provision" should read "when the war is over" or maybe "when there are no more international terrorists"???

We'll be "at war" for 300 years by that standard.

375 posted on 12/21/2005 12:09:54 AM PST by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: Names Ash Housewares

...and Hitler was popularly elected!

We have a CONSTITUTION and enumerated BILL OF RIGHTS for good reasons!

Any and all attempts to sidestep, circumvent or ignore same is an act of sedition, no matter how loudly the proponents clamor that "the end justifies the means".

I have already witnessed the appalling attitude change of our American "Law Enforcement" post "patriot act", it has NOT been good for the American public.
The new attitude is, "We are THE LAW, we can do anything we want, you have no rights, we can do anything we want to anybody for any reason we feel like".
This may not be the "patriot act's" original intent, but it certainly IS a visible result. BTW, the act has ALREADY been abused to prosecute entirely domestic acts having NOTHING to do with terrorism.

You don't believe it?
Fine, but when your eyes are opened by personal experience, you will not be able to claim you did not know it was coming.

There are indeed some excellent provisions in the misnamed "patriot act", but there are also too many which are flagrantly unconstitutional.
If this is truly a "Conservative" site, we should be "Conserving" our Constitution and BOR as written, not subjugating it to "the necessity of the moment" as the liberals are so fond of doing!
As the saying goes, "Legislate in haste, repent at leisure".
This is the time to "repent" and fix the horrid flaws in the feculent haste-fully written and passed "patriot act".

I applaud the four Republicans who are standing against this "act" as written, and sorely disappointed that our republic is having to depend on Liberals to defend itself against such brazen sedition.



Let the flames begin, I'll take the heat when I know I'm right.
If anyone here actually THINKS about this issue based on fact in place of emotion, they will have probably agree with me. Even if they are afraid to do so publicly.


376 posted on 12/21/2005 12:10:58 AM PST by Richard-SIA ("The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield" JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Williams

I favor the kick to the rear. We have pretty clear evidence carrots don't work. They only want more. Brings to mind: Give them an inch and they take a mile.


377 posted on 12/21/2005 12:11:37 AM PST by singfreedom ("Victory at all costs,.......for without victory there is no survival."--Churchill--that's "Winston")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta
There is plenty of fear in this debate. It's recognizable.

I don't think that lawyers will win this one.

378 posted on 12/21/2005 12:12:11 AM PST by A Citizen Reporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: paul51
'm asking if there are any safeguards against abuse.

From my initial research, there are no safeguards - agents are on the honor system. A person won't ever know if they've had their records subpoenaed so they won't even be able to challenge it.

379 posted on 12/21/2005 12:15:15 AM PST by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]

To: ncountylee

This Sinunu guy always looked suspicious to me.


380 posted on 12/21/2005 12:15:17 AM PST by eclectic (Liberalism is a mental disorder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400 ... 441-452 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson