Senators join forces to roll back parts of Patriot Act.

THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | 16 Oct 03 | By Audrey Hudson

[.cnI redruM]

A bipartisan group of lawmakers and advocacy groups have formed a "Coalition of Conscience" to roll back sections of the Patriot Act they say encroach on civil liberties.

"This is an amazing coalition. Very seldom do these groups and these senators come together," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat.

[freeeee]

Post 79 should read "We don't need to aristocratic class of government masters to tell us what it means."

[WoofDog123]

"Have you forgotten how it felt that day?
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside going thru a living hell"

What level of government scrutiny of citizens private actions would you find intrusive? We would certainly be safer with random police interviews with people meeting certain profiles, possibly using data mining, continuous random phone taps, etc. Why hasn't the administration done this? I have little doubt that it would save lives in the short term.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

I hate to do this - but I was listening to a national sports talk show this AM (Tony Bruno), and he taunted as follows:

Hey Chicago - you felt it - it was there in your grasp, and it s-l-i-p-p-e-d through your fingers.

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

[Jason_b]

Some if not all liberties can be viewed as potential liberties. I don't own a gun. But I can if I want and the 2nd Amendment guarantees that I can exercise that right when I choose or deem necessary.

For my own sake, and others, I would not want the 2nd amendment to be taken away for any reason. That would be a loss of a potential liberty for me and an actual liberty for others. I think if the RKBA was respected on the airlines, then some folks might have been carrying and shot the hijackers preventing them from taking down the WTC. But curtailments and infringements of the RKBA that happened prior to the Patriot Act has ensured that no one will bother trying to carry a loaded gun on board unless they themselves are a criminal (and then it would have to be snuck on board).

I don't trust people with information they may get about me, so I think it best if they not have it. If I am a criminal that is something different. But these new powers are not about pursuing specific criminals when a tap could be on a phone that anyone can pick up and use.

If a corrupt enough future administration were to be elected, it might abuse the new powers the Patriot Act gives them. And such powers might be used against people who complain too much or organize peaceful political opposition.

Rather than have a government possess large amounts of power to use against the people, and trust it not to use those powers in an abusive way, some people prefer not to let the government have those powers at all. Especially if they directly threaten Bill of Rights protections. And that might prevent potential future abuse.

A person whose leanings or biases might be described as "statist" could disagree and prefer the government to have the power and wait until the actual abuses occur before anything is done about it, but often by that time it is too late to do anything about it.

[WoofDog123]

"So if a Chinese army invaded America (let's say), and the US Military had a reasonable belief that the Chinese had a missile battery parked in your back yard, you think it would be an invasion of your civil liberties if they destroyed said missile battery without obtaining a warrant or waiting until after the missiles were launched?
"

Would you object to periodic searches of your home and person to verify that the above in fact does not apply to you? Searches might not exceed 10 per year, with minimal inconvenience to you and your family. Of course, anything discovered dealing with other civil or criminal matters would be referred to the proper authorities.

[cookcounty]

">>>>There was no copy of the bill available for Congress to read before the vote.

They were in a hurry, but to their credit, they were concerned about long-term abuse, and that is why the Patriot Act has a "sunset clause" which means it will pass out of existance in another 2 years or so (not sure about the exact expiration date).

[PhiKapMom]

Bottom line? There are a number of people around who aren't impressed with your thoughts, and who are now of the opinion that Ron Paul is an impractical, incredibly thick dunce.

Your comments on this thread are outstanding! I couldn't agree with you more on the above comment. I don't understand some of what I see posted on here at all -- very glad that this group has absolutely "zero" say in how this Country is run. I agree with the Patriot Act -- if you have nothing to hide, why worry about the Act?

[dirtboy]

I agree with the Patriot Act -- if you have nothing to hide, why worry about the Act?

Two words - President Hillary. I do agree that there is a lot of hyperbole about the Patriot Act, but there are sections that need to have better safeguards instilled to prevent abuse from a future unscrupulous administration. For example, for all the thunder from the ACLU and librarians about Section 215, the evidentary standard is set by Executive Order as probable cause that the suspect is a foreign terrorist. However, since that is set by EO, it can be changed by EO, and Congress should do such.

[WoofDog123]

"A person whose leanings or biases might be described as "statist" could disagree and prefer the government to have the power and wait until the actual abuses occur before anything is done about it, but often by that time it is too late to do anything about it.
"

There are a number of advocates of state authority on this thread, which amazes me. They would give a HRC this power?

[WoofDog123]

"I agree with the Patriot Act -- if you have nothing to hide, why worry about the Act? "

For that matter, you might ask PhilKapMom why worry about the need for the Fourth amendment at all. If you have nothing to hide, why demand a warrant? we could call this the "Warrant Loophole"

[Admin Moderator]

Ixnay on the asterisked-out fbombs and calling people vulgarities. Thanks.

[dirtboy]

For that matter, you might ask PhilKapMom why worry about the need for the Fourth amendment at all. If you have nothing to hide, why demand a warrant? we could call this the "Warrant Loophole"

Maybe folks could volunteer to put signs on their front door declaring that law enforcement can search at any time without a warrant.

[Timmy]

Mr. Craig said they could not document any abuses of the Patriot Act since it was first enacted two years ago.

Leave it to Congress to demagogue and solve a problem that does not exist.

[TheGunny]

(sheepishly) OK.

[RonPaulLives]

There are a number of people around who aren't impressed with your thoughts, and who are now of the opinion that Ron Paul is an impractical, incredibly thick dunce.

74 posted on 10/16/2003 12:07 PM EDT by Chancellor Palpatine

To borrow the words of a liberal Democrat, I am deeply saddened by your statement. :>

[Charles Martel]

I'm not manipulating at all. Terrorists are criminals. The only reason you like to think that they are war criminals is because they have really big crimes.

The U.N. makes similar references to terrorism as "international crime". The remedy for which, of course, is civilian disarmament. That's all the confirmation I need to be satisfied that my view of terrorism as alternative warfare is more accurate than your "really big crimes" opinion.

[cookcounty]

"If terrorists attack the United States,....."

Well supposin' a group of Jihadists in America, who are on record as hating this nation and it's people. Let's say they collect a huge data base on airline patterns and bomb construction, and how anthrax can be spread, and collect every raw material for all these things that is legal to possess, and communicate regularly with known Al-Qaeda members.

You would want to wait until an attack takes place before tapping their phones?

I'm just asking for discussion's sake.

[olorin]

. . . if you have nothing to hide, why worry about the Act?

Following your logic, I can only assume that you would not mind if your house was searched randomly. I mean if you have nothing to hid, why worry?

[mrsmith]

Thanks! I see the bill is in Michigander's post #11 on the other thread he linked to.