Posted on 10/01/2009 10:05:29 PM PDT by smoothsailing
 |
You might not have heard, but some key parts of the nation's most important anti-terrorism law are set to expire in December. When the Patriot Act was originally passed in the days following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress put time limits on three of its most far-reaching provisions: "Roving wiretaps," which allow investigators to keep up with suspects who use dozens of cell phones to avoid being traced; "business records" authority, which lets investigators ask a special national-security court for access to records of a suspect's dealings with private businesses; and the "lone wolf" provision, which allows investigators to track individual terror suspects even if they are not a member of a terrorist group, like al Qaeda. Congress renewed those provisions in 2005 and now must give them another four-year renewal, or they will disappear.
Some Democratic lawmakers have long wanted to weaken the act, and now, with big majorities in the House and Senate, they have their chance. But the renewal debate just happens to come at a time when recently uncovered domestic terror plots -- most notably the Denver shuttle bus driver and his colleagues caught with bomb-making materials and a list of specific targets in New York City -- are highlighting the very threats the act was designed to counter. Republicans are fighting to keep the law in its current form.
"These three provisions have been very important for the investigative agencies who are working every day to protect us from terrorist attack," says Sen. Jeff Sessions, ranking Republican on the committee. "Before the Patriot Act, terrorist investigators had far less authority to get records and documents than a DEA or an IRS agent."
Democrats have proposed a number of changes, all of which would weaken the law. Sen. Russell Feingold wants to do away with the "lone wolf" provision entirely. Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Judiciary Committee chairman, would make it more difficult for investigators to obtain business records. In addition, Leahy wants to return to legal standards that existed before September 11 regarding "national security letters," which are essentially subpoenas issued by the FBI and other security agencies. "They are going back to a September 10th mentality -- literally," says one GOP committee aide.
Even roving wiretaps, a widely accepted, common-sense feature of the Patriot Act, have come under question. At a Sept. 23 committee hearing, Sen. Al Franken, the newest member of the committee, challenged the constitutionality of such wiretaps, and in the process left an Obama Justice Department official -- who supports the law -- muttering in frustration.
That official, Assistant Attorney General David Kris, tried to explain to Franken that the law allows, and the courts have held, that investigators can wiretap a suspect based on a specific description of that suspect's activities, even if investigators don't know his name.
Franken, who pointed out that he is not a lawyer, was unimpressed. "That's what brings me to this," he said, pulling a copy of the Constitution from his coat pocket. He read aloud the Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."
Is the Patriot Act's roving wiretap provision consistent with the Constitution? Franken asked.
"I do think it is," Kris answered, "and I kind of want to defer to that other, third branch of government. The courts, in looking at -- "
"I know what they are," Franken joked, as the audience laughed.
Kris seemed taken aback. "This is surreal," he said under his breath.
Indeed it was. Maybe Franken was serious, and maybe he was just clowning around. But it didn't make for an enlightening exchange -- or bode well for the Patriot Act.
Now the committee is down to the business of crafting an actual bill to reauthorize the act. Republicans believe they can beat back some of the more sweeping changes, but they are under no illusions about the Democratic majority's power to chip away at the government's ability to fight terrorism.
"I'm very worried that we could end up weakening the act," says Sessions, "when we should be considering what we can do to make it stronger."
Byron York, The Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blog posts appears on www.ExaminerPolitics.com ExaminerPolitics.com.
Now there’s a real pair to draw to. Franken is an airhead that’s still wet behind the ears and Leahy is an anti-American turkey that would just as soon have nothing classified in our government, except of course what he thinks should be.
When is somebody going to tell this lamebraineed idiot Franken that the “wiretaps” are being done BY A COMPUTER.
The computer is told what words to listen for .. when the words are triggered, the investigation starts.
If it turns out to be some young people telling a joke - the investigation is expunged.
However, if it’s a person in say Detroit who is calling a supposed family member in say Pakistan .. then the computer’s ears are much more sensitive and since the right words have been triggered it could start a wire tap.
So far, nobody’s rights have been violated - because this is protected by the Patriot Act.
If anybody is against this .. then they don’t care if hundreds of thousands of Americans are murdered.
Al Franken is a KOOK .. logic escapes him.
It’s a damned shame that lefties like Franken are the ones to want to take this monstrosity apart. But at least SOMEONE’S on board with it, small consolation that it is. USA-PATRIOT’s GOTTA GO. (In case you law and order at any price types have a fit about it, oh, well. It NEVER SHOULD HAVE PASSED in the FIRST place.) Law officers have all the power and authority they need to track terrorists without this abomination. The only thing it does is let them NOT use warrants or inform you, the victim of their searches, that they were there. BOTH of these are clearly unconstitutional and ANY TRUE conservative should have been screaming from the rooftops the FIRST time around. Oh... we were. The REST of you were all too willing to fasten the shackles onto your ankles. Trouble was and is, you’re too willing to give up MY freedoms along with YOURS. THAT, friends, is totally unacceptable.
And while I think Franken is a lamebrain, Its about time someone pulled out the constitution and ask a government official to show where in the constitution a particular action is provided.
I do not trust government to limit its "spying" to just oversees calls. And while we may agree that a short term push against the fourth amendment is necessary in time of war, that short term need to be prevented from being long term.
And who is to say that a simple conversation about a wedding with relatives overseas is what it is, or something more dark. Because its left to a computer, its okay?
The steps we take to protect ourselves as a nation can also be used to protect the government against its citizens. This is the danger and why every congress critter needs a copy of the constitution in their breast pocket to refer to and ask themselves if the legislation before them follows both the intent and purpose of the document, which is to protect and advance liberty of the individual at the expense of the state.
I am of the opinion that ALL the provisions of the Patriot Act need to be revisited and discussed in an open and national nature. What has worked should have sunset clauses and what is onerous, tossed, Including some of the banking provisions that has a teller asking you where you got that 2500 bucks you are depositing... The average citizen is assumed a criminal until he or she proves otherwise...
Bookmarked for tomorrow
Well .. that certainly is logical .. lets just sunset all the clauses that have kept us safe .. very logical.
What more is there to say! I don’t argue with idiots.
You make excellent sense. Too bad you’re gonna take a lot of flack from the “security at any cost” crowd...
The rest of you: PING!
You care to DOCUMENT how these unconstitutional provisions have actually kept you safe, please? Then point out just exactly WHAT about this abomination has given law enforcement that they did NOT have prior to its passage. Then explain how shredding the Constitution makes our freedom more secure. Finally, you can tell us that the Constitution is not a suicide pact and we’re at war and the government needs to “...burn this village in order to save it...” You know, the usual blather that you foaming-at-the-mouth types are throwing around in order to get the rest of us to give up OUR freedom for YOUR illusion of security.
I wonder what motivates them, I doubt it has anything to do with expanding an individual's freedom from government intrusion.
Were you safe in say 1978?
Is declaring how and why you are depositing X dollars into your bank account keeping you safe? What about all the other myriad of provisions of that bill that we STILL don't know about?
Oh, hell, why do I bother? You want to be a subject of the state apparatus, go ahead, those of us that still wish to breath the fresh air of liberty will just have to die off, so you can be "safe"...
Were you safe in say 1978?
Is declaring how and why you are depositing X dollars into your bank account keeping you safe? What about all the other myriad of provisions of that bill that we STILL don't know about?
Oh, hell, why do I bother? You want to be a subject of the state apparatus, go ahead, those of us that still wish to breath the fresh air of liberty will just have to die off, so you can be "safe"...
Don’t like the Patriot Act, nor Muslim nutters looking for a glorious end. At some point, the Nation and it’s elected leaders are going to have to stop the PC dialog and confront the real issue. It would also be helpful if Islam had it’s own reformation.
My friends decry the Wahabbi actions practiced by the Saudi's and others. They find the Burka laughable. Maybe Islam has undergone a reformation of sorts in parts of West Africa, where Christian and Muslim live together and share in each others holidays.
But, as I told one friend recently, Islam can not undergo a reformation, until its various religious thinkers can "think" and espouse, without fear of a Fatwa. I hope it happens.
I think many of us can agree that the actions undertaken under the guise of Christianity in past centuries was not "Christ-like", I think of the Spanish Conquests here in the Americas. The reformation slowly changed that conversion by sword outlook at the world. I agree that Islam also needs to undergo that same process.
Your guess is as good as mine. Especially with Obambi holding illegally to the reins of power... but it’s long past time that SOMEONE wants to get rid of USA-PATRIOT.
That 'Lone Wolf' provision gives Janet Nappy and the DHS plus Eric Holder and his DoJ, enough 'probable cause' to go after us 'right wing extremists' outlined in that DHS memo.
(we don't have John Ashcroft as AG anymore, one who'd actually follow the law)
More thanks to the great state of Minnesota. Or should we thank ACORN?
... “the average citizen” ...
This is where you make your fatal error. The wire taps are not geared toward “the average citizen”. That’s why a computer is used to monitor KNOWN TERROR SUSPECTS who are calling people IN AMERICA - or vice versa. The liberals have tried to make the American people believe that there is a room full of people listening to their every conversation. That’s incredible ignorance.
So your premise is flawed! The “average citizen” is not being monitored. And .. I invite you to prove that ONE CASE HAS BEEN BROUGHT showing that the “average citizen” has been wire-tapped. You cannot - because none exist.
And .. if you don’t think an act of war against this country (9/11) should cause us to be a bit more concerned about any other plots against us - then you seem to be saying that it’s more important to “sunset” good measures that keep tabs on terrorists. And .. if you did have measures which would sunset every year in the Patriot Act - the democrat congress would already have LET THEM ALL SUNSET - which shows weakness and invites another attack.
And further .. the most recent terrorist plots WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STOPPED - leaving us even more vulnerable.
And further .. your condescending tone “let me draw this carefully for you” shows a tendancy to try to discredit anybody who does not agree with you. I don’t have to agree with you - and you don’t have to agree with me .. but you don’t have to act like you’re so superior that my opinion is of no value - and making it personal is totally the liberal way. I think you’ve just exposed yourself.
Quite frankly Scarlett .. I don’t give a rip if you agree with anything I ever say.
AND my condescending tone was in response to YOUR post saying don't wish to dally with those YOU in your almighty righteous sense declare an idiot.... good day sir/madam or whatever you may be. But once again, Let me show you the fallacy of your logic...
Are we to be in perpetual war? Will we need these provisions forever and forever? If not, then put Sunset Clauses on them that force legislators to vote to keep them in place if needed. It really is as simple as that. jeez, I think I hit a sore spot with your Cyberant.
Actually, you didn’t “hit” anything!!
Your constant mantra - sunset, sunset, sunset .. it’s just not the time to be considering that phase.
Today, 8 of our soldiers were killed in Aphganistan - because it’s LOADED WITH PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KILL US. The ones who were in Iraq and have now moved on to another location.
Obviously, you didn’t get the point!
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.