Posted on 02/26/2010 7:30:38 AM PST by MaestroLC
WASHINGTON -- The House of Representatives reauthorized the Patriot Act for one year Thursday.
The vote was 315-97 .
Many liberals in the House opposed the controversial act, saying it tramps Constitutional protections and civil liberties.
*snip*
The Senate ok'd the package earlier this week. President Obama is expected to sign the bill into law.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Passed both House and Senate....I’d love to know which Dems voted in favor of this....now that Obama’s POTUS.
Time to re-up our Reichstag insurance.
VOICE VOTE? are they cowards or what?
“Several key components of the law are set to expire Sunday, including wire-tapping, surveillance and seizure provisions. If passed by the House, they will expire on Feb. 28, 2011.
The law was passed by voice vote, which does not require debate on the Senate floor.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33479.html#ixzz0gfpffCOj
“Protecting this country from foreign and domestic threats is among the mandated responsibilities of government. I will not chastize them for doing the job we Constitutionally mandated that they do.”
Define “domestic threats”? According to the DOJ, we are “domestic threats”. Patriot Act has been used in some high-profile cases that had nothing to do with terrorism and will continue to be.
You trust in your government far too much.
>> Define “domestic threats”?
Timothy McVeigh ... the Ft. Hood shooter ... the schmuck that flew a plane into the IRS building in Austin. Those domestic threats.
>> According to the DOJ, we are “domestic threats”.
And yet we’re still here. The Obama Administration and Holder DOJ has had the backing of the Patriot Act for over a year ... and has yet to use it to round up or prosecute conservatives or freepers.
>> Patriot Act has been used in some high-profile cases that had nothing to do with terrorism and will continue to be.
The Patriot act is a tactic for counterterrorism and criminal justice. I see no problem with it being used in non-terrorist criminal cases.
>> You trust in your government far too much.
As Reagan said with regard to the Soviets — trust but verify. The government needs the capability of defending this nation — to withhold such capability would be malpractice on the part of the citizenry.
The government MUST be watched very diligently — but they must have the legal capability of fulfilling their Constitutional mandate.
SnakeDoc
“And yet we’re still here. The Obama Administration and Holder DOJ has had the backing of the Patriot Act for over a year ... and has yet to use it to round up or prosecute conservatives or freepers.”
Give ‘em time. Like I said. You trust government too much.
The USA PATRIOT-type powers are pretty much the same asked for be Reno during the Clinton Administration.
“The Patriot act is a tactic for counterterrorism and criminal justice. I see no problem with it being used in non-terrorist criminal cases.”
So, are there any limits to the police power?
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-12.pdf
“As Reagan said with regard to the Soviets — trust but verify. The government needs the capability of defending this nation — to withhold such capability would be malpractice on the part of the citizenry.”
The government intentionally DOESN’T defend the nation.
“The government MUST be watched very diligently — but they must have the legal capability of fulfilling their Constitutional mandate.”
There are many who would argue that these expanded powers violate that Constitution. If they intended to defend the country, we’d have secured borders, not laws intended to further control citizens.
The code pink gals will need loads of D-cell batteries to overcome this renewal of the patriot act.
>> Give ‘em time. Like I said. You trust government too much.
I read the same thing in DU rants about Bush/Cheney. Like I said ... paranoia abounds.
>> So, are there any limits to the police power?
Yes. This law does not exceed those limits.
>> There are many who would argue that these expanded powers violate that Constitution.
So? Then “many” are wrong. There are many people that believe abortion is a Constitutional right. That “many” believe something is not persuasive.
>> If they intended to defend the country, we’d have secured borders, not laws intended to further control citizens.
I’m with you on the border. But, since the Patriot Act was passed, I have noticed no additional government control over my actions, my speech, or the actions of anyone I’ve encountered. No rights have been breached.
SnakeDoc
>> The code pink gals will need loads of D-cell batteries to overcome this renewal of the patriot act.
Haha. That was a mental image I did not need.
From now on, to avoid further revulsion, I will picture the Women of Fox News when referring to Code Pink. Accuracy notwithstanding, its certainly a more appealing mental image.
SnakeDoc
I would remind you to look at the Constitution again. The job of Gov’t is to support and defend the Constitution. Nothing about keeping you safe, that is your job.
No one is safe in a police state with no freedom. The Patriot Act will be used by the police state. Joy.
Just as accurately, ain't a dime's worth of difference between the big government/anti-civil liberty Demopublicans and the big government Republocrats and their leader George W. Obama.
“I read the same thing in DU rants about Bush/Cheney. Like I said ... paranoia abounds.”
Like I said: shove the “paranoia” bilge.
“Yes. This law does not exceed those limits.”
Actually, yes. “Sneak-n-peak”.
“I’m with you on the border. But, since the Patriot Act was passed, I have noticed no additional government control over my actions, my speech, or the actions of anyone I’ve encountered. No rights have been breached.”
Actually, you just haven’t noticed the increasing data they are now maintaining on you.
I want to see the DU react to this
>> I would remind you to look at the Constitution again. The job of Gov’t is to support and defend the Constitution. Nothing about keeping you safe, that is your job.
Good grief. You should re-read it yourself. The Federal government’s responsibility for national security is codified in Article 4, section 4. It is also mentioned in the first sentence of the document (the preamble) as among the initial justifications for its writing.
Article IV, section 4 — “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union [...] and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and [...] against domestic Violence.”
“We the people of the United States, in order to [...] provide for the common defense [...] and secure the blessings of Liberty do ordain and establish this Constitution [...].”
The federal duty to protect and defend this country from foreign invasion and domestic violence is fully codified in the Constitution. I claimed no right to personal safety.
>> No one is safe in a police state with no freedom.
Granted. But our government is not the only threat to our freedom — and our government is responsible for defending this nation and its citizens from external and internal threats to that freedom.
SnakeDoc
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch ; Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
>> Like I said: shove the “paranoia” bilge.
I heard you, but the point stands. Paranoia abounds. As do, apparently, delusions of grandeur. The Obama Administration is no more tracking you than Dick Cheney was tracking DUers.
This is a criminal justice and counterterrorist law that has helped us avert terrorist activity and out several terrorist cells on American soil. Had it been in place, and competently used, it could’ve averted 9/11.
We are at war. We cannot hamstring our those sworn to defend this nation, and expect to win ... and our very freedom and sovereignty depends on victory.
I will object to any Obama Administration action, including perversion of the Patriot Act, that I find objectionable. I do not, however, object to the law itself. Victory over islamic fascism is essential to the preservation of the Republic.
SnakeDoc
The rank and file is pissed. See Senate Votes to Extend Patriot Act at TalkLeft, for example.
You are conflating "action" with "observation." You express a point of view whereby if you don't notice being observed, then no rights have been breached. Under that logic, you'd not object to a non-caught peeping Tom. Peeping Toms don't assert control over your actions, speech, etc.
If you have nothing to hide, no harm.
Fox News has given us many pleasant visions.
The poster with whom I was conversing asserted that the Patriot Act allowed “control”. I was disputing that assertion by point out that our actions are not being controlled.
Public activites (such as posting on a message board) are always legal for observation ... and the Patriot Act does allow for more surveillance of non-public activities.
SnakeDoc
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.