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 ...
So is Libertarianism! Happy now?
He's mine and I have already along with expressing my disappointment in this and also his supporting amnesty for illegal aliens even though he denies it (I have his voting record).
I'm up in the air on this... I know the Patriot act was created with good intentions but I fear that the powers it grants to the government are going to be severely abused. Some agencies are asking for some really questionable abilities and that bothers me a lot.
I for one won't cry over the demise of the Patriot Act if it does get shot down permanantly but will it leave us vulnerable as the President claims? I hate to say it but I have to question just how effective it is and I don't like the idea of having my rights trampled for this.
Mike
You misunderstand. Those four are the only four willing to stand for the Constitution and against the current wave of Republican cheerleading. I am glad those four are there (although unfortunately, I fear their dissent will be broken down in backroom dealmaking)
All laws should have a sunset provision? All laws? Yeah right. Rather clumsy approach. All laws can be changed at any time as it is. It's done every day. There is no need for a sunset provision except for temporary situations. This is not one of them.
That's your opinion and in my opinon you're wrong.
I disagree. Larry Craig is a good conservative. We could use about ten more of him.
Somehow I knew someone would say that.
That does not change the fact that a certain level of government is necessary and the Patriot Act is necessary.
Evidently it takes 72 hours to obtain approval from the agency that was set up to take care of this type of need. Under the Presidential plan, he can act immediately. I do recognize problems with this, but as long as the President is reporting to Congress, it's not like he's doing something by subtrifuge.
I recognize the problems. You may even be right. I do think the act is warranted. I too have had some reservations.
I have to question your follow-up comment. If he's so good why would we need only ten more of him?
I don't know that much about him. Perhaps you're right. I'd settle for a 3 fer 2 swap, with additional persons to be named later... ;)
I don't know when these clowns are up for re election.
Sununu is probably safe in his gay/deviant state.
The other 3 might end up unemployed in the next election by a real republican.
I'll agree with you publicly. The Constitution clearly recognizes all rights first come from the Creator given directly to the individual and it is the people, made up of individuals, of the United States who allow government to exercise authority over the specific areas enumerated in the Constitution and its Amendments. As Thomas Jefferson stated, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
But hey, there are those on this thread who believe it is government's duty to protect them, it's government's right to know anything "it" wants about its subjects, yet they decry a national ID???? Let them concede to that resolve if they've a mind to - let them "feel good" in their decision of subjugation and dependence. Pray there are more with the intellect to decide differently. When the real test comes, they could find themselves in a situation similar to some of New Orleans' residents in Katrina's aftermath. The government is not the people's Savior, never has been - never can be.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1544717/posts
Here is one of the main problems I have... for the last 30+ years, they've gathered lists, restricted gun ownership, free speach, freedom of religion, etc. and now, they endow themselves with these powers with no checks and balances outside of the Government. It's like having the fox guard the hen house.
Then you add in the fact that they are willing to have the NSA operations concerning US citizens inside the US yet, they won't work on the illegal alien problem.
If the situation wasn't so serious and dangerous, it would be laughable. I don't trust the Government. They haven't given me any reason to trust them... but they've given me plenty of reasons to be concerned about their actions. This is just another straw on the camel's back. Where does it end? We keep accepting the BS excuses for these exceptions to the Constitution, soon enough, we aren't going to have a Constitution left.
Mike
I could have written the note you did. I agree. Where I disagree is my long term outlook for the U.S. The immigration issue was the real tipper for me.
We still allow people to immigrate from terrorist states. We still allow millions to cross our southern border each year without any security check whatsoever. We have seen the terrorism, the murders, the rapes, the pedophilia and on and on. They won't stop it.
It's clear to me that our government is in total mealt-down. What isn't so clear is how we address this. I agree with the issues you raised. Now, do we open ourselves up to terrorist attack in an effort to stop the progression?
I'm not convinced that's the smartest response, even though I am skeptical, as you are.
I'd attack the immigration issue first. Then when warranted I'd back off the Patriot act and other laws that are not in our best interest. The first would be gun laws, which are senseless in most instances. The Patriot Act would be close behind.
Okay.
and
`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.
All this does is define the "domestic" adjective for terrorism, acts enumerated that "appear to be intended--". It does NOT mean all those prior conditions must have been met, but any - else there would be a conjunctive "and" preceding the next condition instead of a semicolon. The employ of a semicolon is necessary when "clauses of a compound sentence have no coordinating conjunction". Without a specific conjunction, each can stand independently of the others.
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.