Posted on 05/12/2003 10:08:26 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
The tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001 — and the killing of more than 3,000 Americans — are forever etched in our nation's memory. Soon after this tragic attack, Congress in bipartisan fashion enacted the Patriot Act, a long-overdue set of measures that provided law enforcement and intelligence agencies with basic tools needed to fight and win the war against terrorism.
In 1996, I proposed many of these same measures in an anti-terrorism bill. Had these measures been in place prior to 9/11, law enforcement agencies may well have been able to catch some or all of the terrorists.
The Patriot Act has not eroded any of the rights we hold dear as Americans. I would be the first to call for corrective action, were that the case. Yet not one of the civil liberties groups has cited one instance of abuse of our constitutional rights, one decision by any court that any part of the Patriot Act was unconstitutional or one shred of evidence to contradict the fact that these tools protect what is perhaps our most important civil liberty: the freedom from future terrorist attacks.
Several important provisions of the Patriot Act are scheduled to sunset, or expire, on Dec. 31, 2005. When the bill originally was passed by the Senate, I opposed the sunset, along with 95 other senators.
Given the importance of the Patriot Act tools to our nation's war against terrorism, why would we simply sunset these provisions when we know full well that the terrorists will not sunset their evil intentions? There is no logical reason for our nation to lay down some of its most effective arms while fighting this war.
Last Thursday, the Senate added another important anti-terrorism provision to the arsenal of weapons to combat terrorism. The Senate fixed a gap in the original 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to authorize the gathering of intelligence information relating to "lone-wolf" terrorists — who cannot be linked to an international organization or state. This bipartisan proposal will enhance the ability of the FBI and intelligence agencies to investigate terrorists and detect their plots to prevent devastating attacks on our country. Lawmakers were right to fix this glaring problem.
Congress has had a full opportunity to weigh and assess the benefits of the Patriot Act, and that will continue whether or not there is a sunset. Some have claimed that the sunset is needed to ensure proper oversight. That is silly. Congress can always exercise oversight and change or repeal any law if warranted.
The bottom line is clear: We should not undermine or limit our law enforcement and intelligence agencies' efforts by imposing requirements that go above and beyond those required by the Constitution. That would only have the effect of protecting terrorists and criminals while endangering the lives of innocent Americans.
How many "laws" have been rescinded? I think that congress, and EVERY other lawmaking body on this continent *should* review every law on the books biannually.
This would have the added bonus of keeping them busy enough that nonsense like gun-free zones, anti-smoking on private property ordinances, and seat-belt laws wouldn't even see the light of day, because the legislators would be too busy reading and trying to understand the laws their co-conspirators had already written!
The above shows Orrin has it backward. Nether he, nor you apperently, would know an unenumerated right if it bit him or you on the ass.
Unless the Constitution authorizes it, it's out of bounds. The PA is a huge exercise in using the Constitution as toilet paper.
Orrin asked you if you could provide proof that your rights had been violated.
Over my 50+ years I see more protected rights than ever before. I also see more intrusion on the State level, but then, the constitution protects that intrusion in writing.
So where is the beef?
I have a different approach - why don't YOU, Mr. Hatch, have the Justice Department provide to skeptical congressmen such as Sensenbrenner details about how each provision of the Patriot Act has been used and how it has aided in combating terrorism. If a provision is deemed effective, keep it. If it isn't or has been used in an excessive manner, kill it. Don't spike the debate on this issue in the name of expediency - there is still over two years left before this sunsets, which calls into question both your timing and your motives on this matter.
Times are a bit different now, due to the speed of international travel and commerce - plus, in the past rather draconian actions have been taken during wartime and then relaxed afterwards. I'm not saying all of the Patriot Act is justified, but it's clear things have changed quite a bit since 1945...
One sunsetting provision, Section 215, allows fisa warrants if the atty gen finds probable cause- with a judge just reviewing that decision. I'd like a convincing explanation why probable cause shouldn't be left completely up to the judge to determine for himself.
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.