Posted on 04/09/2003 8:21:51 AM PDT by TLBSHOW
Patriot Act To Be Made Permanent? By Report by J.J. Johnson
WASHINGTON, April 8 - According to the New York Times , Congressional Republicans are working to make permanent the sweeping antiterrorism powers given to federal law enforcement agents after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The Times reports that the move is likely to touch off strong objections from many Democrats and even some Republicans in Congress who believe that the Patriot Act, as the legislation that grew out of the attacks is known, has already given the government too much power to spy on Americans. If you recall, it was only passed with the agreement there would be a sunshine clause inserted, where Congress would have to review the act in 2005.
The legislation expanded the government's power to use eavesdropping, surveillance, access to financial and computer records and other tools to track terrorist suspects, clearly testing the limits of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. It has been on the books since October of 2001.
The times said the move to repeal the ‘sunset’ clause was crafted by one Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah. Republicans may seek to move on the proposal this week by trying to attaching it to another antiterrorism bill that would make it easier for the government to use secret surveillance warrants against "lone wolf" terrorism suspects.
Bear in mind that while the New York Times laid on this on Hatch, the Utah Senator made no comment on the record. Nor has any other republican. Democrats, needless to say, aren’t too happy about it. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), predicted that Republicans lacked the votes to repeal the limits.
The Times also wrote that Justice Department officials credited the Patriot Act with allowing the F.B.I. to move with greater speed and flexibility to disrupt terrorist operations before they occur, and they say they wanted to see the 2005 time limit on the legislation lifted.
"The Patriot Act has been an extremely useful tool, a demonstrated success, and we don't want that to expire on us," a senior department official said on condition of anonymity.
Another senior official who also demanded anonymity said the department had held discussions with Congressional Republicans about how that might best be accomplished. "Our involvement has really been just keeping an open ear to the issue as it's proceeding, not to really guide the debate," the official said.
Again, notice how no one wanted to go on the record about this. Debate is expected, but months away. The Sierra Times suggests, consider this New York Times story an official ‘trial balloon’ to gauge the public reaction. Chances of the sunshine clause being lifted is slim at best - unless another major terrorist attack happens before then
I am a huge Bush supporter, but there is always that "line in the sand".
Now if it is absolutely necessary for my safety I am willing to live with this law. However I'd feel much "safer" if we rounded up all illegal aliens who have shown they are a threat to America and deport them and close off our borders to all but those who emigrate here via legal means.
Remember, it's a direct question. Yes or no. No tapdancing around the issue allowed
I have no idea, if I could predict the future, like you think you can, I would be earning a billion dollars a year predicting the weather, but that will not stop me from trying to convince purists like you not to waste their vote in "protest" on a third party candidate who helps a candidate of bad character become President.
Remember character can actually matter again.
I am a Keyes come Bush supporter, voted for him twice. But I wouldn't support this proposal no matter who put it forth.
It's a matter of empowering a feckless, irresponsible government with this kind of power in general that's troubling to me. At some point, this is ripe for abuse and there's no logical reason for me to support that.
Huh you must have as many bumps on your head as Tom cat from the old Tom & Jerry cartoons. It looks like the world has passed you by. The world was changed on 9/11 and what we saw in the streets of Baghdad today the world of terrorists getting away with it is over.
You may long for the old world of America of putting it's head in the sand when it comes to terrorist governments, I do not.
Wrong. I believe there is a threat. I believe that we are doing the right thing with Iraq. I don't believe that we need the Patriot Act to combat either issue.
I do believe that we need to close the borders. I do believe that we need to roll back most, if not all, of what Clinton did to this country. I do believe that we should withdraw from the UN. I believe we should kick the UN out of our country. I believe that we should not surrender any of our rights or sovereignty (individually and as a country) to any government.
That includes our own.
If it is being proposed, will be hard to do in such a short time.
I really wonder about the timing - feels like somebody thought "everybody will be celebrating our victory in Iraq, let's slip this through".
IMHO, most posters on this thread are having kniption fits over a New York Times article expressing gloom and doom over the War on Terror.
Sheesh you all had a bad day today didn't you?
Hot Damn...intelligent discourse with which I can agree...
You are NOT "we." You're neither a conservative or a Republican, and you sure don't support George W. Bush.
I respectfully disagree. After all, TIA got hosed recently. Congress is a lot more watchful and a lot more concerned about these kind of issues than they were immediately after 9/11.
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.