Posted on 12/16/2005 2:25:18 PM PST by SirLinksalot
Senate Blocks Patriot Act Legislation By Richard B. Schmitt Times Staff Writer
1:48 PM PST, December 16, 2005
The Senate, in a bipartisan show of strength, blocked legislation today to renew the USA Patriot Act a surprising and dramatic rebuff to President Bush that reflected rising concern over his handling of the war on terrorism.
The failed vote to end debate and consider a bill that the House easily approved this week left the fate of the terror-fighting law, critical portions of which are due to expire Dec. 31, unclear at the eleventh hour. Four Republicans broke ranks.
It was the second policy reversal in as many days for the president who, on Thursday, bowed to congressional pressure and agreed to accept a formal ban on the use of cruel or inhumane treatment of U.S. detainees. The administration had said such a restriction might undermine U.S. interrogation efforts.
The vote coincided with a published report in today's New York Times that Bush authorized a program to eavesdrop on hundreds of Americans after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 without getting the approval of a court. The story reported that some constitutional scholars thought the activities might have broken federal law.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Looks like the Democrats REALLY want us to LOSE the war on terror and a few Republicans have given them COVER.
-----
The citizens of this country are in real trouble. We have a so-called Washington government that has the first and foremost duty to protect the people of this country. Yet they will not close our borders, in fact, work hard to keep them open and now this gross travesty and atrocity.
I guess it is going to take a major terrorist catastrophe, of massive proportion to wake up the people of this country and finally rise up against the political class in Washington and again gain control of their country through representatives who CARE ABOUT AMERICA. Right now, we are in serious jeapordy.
There's a game of brinksmanship going on. The proponents of the conference report version have options too - for example the 3 month extension in S.2082, which is not contentious at all. Frist asserts that a 3 month extension is unacceptable, so won't bring it up for debate or vote even though he can. Frist asserts thatteh President, given a choice between a 3 month extension and sunset, would choose sunset.
It is all part of Johnny McCain's Al Qaeda Bill of Rights. We've definitely been too rough on the terrorists. You know. The panties on the head torture and all that jazz.
Supremely ironic, given how the opponents of the President are often the ones accused of being unappeasable.
We have no way of knowing. Secret "John Doe", unspecific, and unsigned warrants. That's the point.
How many people's library borrowing habits have been spied upon ?
We don't know. How many? As many as the government wants to, that's how many. How can we find out? We can't.
That's the point.
If the Patriot Act was about security, it would emphasize securing our southern border. However, the southern border is not even mentioned in the PA. The only border that is mentioned is our northern border.
It is not about security. It is about power, and control.
Trent Lott was William Wallace compared to Frist.
Since I am not an American, I wonder if someone can explain what tools does the Patriot Act offer to protect the state from terrorism, and how do others feel it is unconstitutional?
It has something to do with conducting surveillance without a warrant, correct? If thats the case I dont see how that is a big deal. Since most judges are liberals, what judge will allow the FBI to use surveillance outside or inside of mosques and/or CAIR functions?
"Or maybe they don't care about security at all?"
Now the Dems want Bush to break the law by gathering intelligence as if it were still in effect, and then use that to impeach Bush.
The Dims cannot beat Bush at the polls, so now they will try and use the judiciary to get rid of President Bush.
OTOH, if Kennedy, Boxer, and Kerry voted against it as well, Craig's "reasons" aren't good enough.
Good question. But why have virtually open borders, expedited visa proceedures, etc., and then try to shut t-cells down AFTER their here?
Hmmm...
I read on an earlier post that Frist changed his vote to NAY so that he could bring it up for a vote again.
3 repubs is bipartisan for the purpose of this propoganda piece
Well, based upon a urologist's report on the miniscule size of Frist's gonads, that's not a theory I'd buy.
If he does, then they should.
LOL. It was 4, FWIW. Craig, Hagel, Murkowski and Sununu. Frist also voted NAY, but did so in order to support a motion to reconsider the cloture vote.
The underlying matter, the conference report, lives on regardless of Frist's parliametary maneuver. The Motion to Reconsider allows Senator's to "change" their position vis-a-vis cloture, and if the change of heart comes quickly enough, the voting and debate (overiding the objections of a relcalcitrant 30 Senators) would be slightly faster (one day) than mounting a fresh cloture motion.
So as of today, the Gorelick Wall between intelligence agencies is back up. Just how Clinton wanted it to avoid prosecution. How nice.
imo
Has Mineta armed the commercial and cargo airline pilots YET?
Nope still dragging his feet with some higher ups tacit approval...
So many hoops most have given up trying....just as was intended...
imo
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.