Patriot Act To Be Made Permanent? (Trial balloon to gauge the public reaction?)

sierratimes ^ | 4/8/2003 | J.J. Johnson

[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

[jmc813]

Oh jeeeeez, can you two PLEASE go to a different thread to continue your perpetual grudge match? Please? :-)

[steve-b]

I will trust the judgements of the President, the Vice-President, and the Attorney general

[Abundy]

You're neither a conservative or a Republican...

Holy cow!

You mean TLBSHOW is for big government that:

wants to confiscate their firearms;
put cameras on intersections;
encourage people to spy on their neighbors;
wants to read everyone's email without probable cause;
etc...

You mean all this time TLBSHOW is...gasp...a democrat?

[jmc813]

Don't worry. Dane will be working as hard as he can to ensure we don't get Democrats in power again. You can sleep easy.

[Belial]

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.

You keep mentioning the New York Times reporting this, presumably to win support from the types that instantly reject anything they report.

And yet you lack the courage to deny the truth of the story, which has been reported elsewhere. Which is that congressional Republicans are trying to make the Patriot Act permanent.

I've also noticed that this sort of argument is very typical of your style. You deflect, avoid and indulge in logical fallacies to build support for your positions.

It's possible to defend the Patriot Act without reducing yourself to such dishonesty.

[michaelje]

You mean TLBSHOW is for big government that: wants to confiscate their firearms; put cameras on intersections; encourage people to spy on their neighbors; wants to read everyone's email without probable cause;

You can feel free to eliminate the "WANTS" from your statment.

[Howlin]

He's not anything; he finds "causes" and changes his principles on a dime.

Just remember this: he believes George W. Bush is a traitor and is in bed with the terrorists and is a U.N. boy and is a commie liberal just like Bill Clinton.

[Howlin]

But then you probably do, too.

[steve-b]

Because thats clearly whats happening now and I don't see anyone complaining.

See an optometrist.

[Abundy]

i've got you figured out...look, we are at that awkward in-between stage. I still hold out hope that we can stop the slow slide via litigation.

Ok?

[truenospinzone]

I didn't say "will it happen", I said, "do you believe it will happen". Do you honestly not know what you think?

Your entire argument here is that the people in control RIGHT NOW would never abuse the power given to them by this Act. By doing so, you are admitting that the powers can be abused, but as long as "people of character" are in our government, it won't happen.

So let's do it again:

Do you honestly believe that only conservative Republicans will be in control of the Presidency and/or Congress for the next fifty years?

And we'll add another one:

Do you believe that the Act in question could be abused by less-than-honorable politicians?

Remember, I'm not asking you to predict the future. I'm asking for your personal opinion, yes or no, without the ridiculous snide comments and "let me just repeat the same thing over and over and over again until people just stop paying attention to me" tactics that you've used time and time again on this forum.

[michaelje]

I dont know, Ive clashed and agreeded with him for a few years now and can't find a reason to justify your statement.

[Howlin]

It's not a grudge match. I just point out the truth.

[Dane]

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.

Wow, all in a nice little wrapped "message" where you hit all the "hot" buttons.

Sorry to burst your and jmc813's bubble but your above italicized message has been implemented. Bush has made the UN irrelevant without the use of your hyperbole. You all can't handle the reality of today, IMO, but that is your right and problem. Also, IMO, you and jmc have a problem of defending the Libertarian platform of totally open borders(i.e no passports, letting anybody cross the border at will with no question), you all are so transparent.

[Rome2000]

I assume you don't tell the government every April 15th where you work, what your job title is, how much money you make, how much money you have in the bank, your marital status, how many kids you have and their ages, how much you spend on medical insurance, how much your mortgage is, is what you pay or do not pay in alimony, how much you gave to charity, etc....

If you do file a tax return with the IRS, I don't see the point in crying over the Patriot Act, it least it serves a purpose other than stealing your cash so it can be handed over to other people.

[michaelje]

Agreed. But the slope is getting steeper and steeper...

[Abundy]

Just remember this: he believes George W. Bush is a traitor and is in bed with the terrorists and is a U.N. boy and is a commie liberal just like Bill Clinton.

But then you probably do, too.

Hardly...but I also am willing to critically evaluate him even though he has an "R" after his name.

Would you stand for the Patriot Act if it had been put forth by Clinton/Reno?

Oh, that's right, they did try with Hatch's aid back then too....

and no, I've got better things to do with my time than go see what your positions were on the issue back then...so don't get your back up.

Some of us have been consistent in our positions since we signed up on this forum. Others, including many very prominent individuals on this forum, have not...and all I'm saying is I don't trust any politician with the Bill of Rights...some (Clinton) less than others. (Bush)

[TLBSHOW]

You are a plain out right liar and nothing more. But then you knew that before you posted you're smear as you do over and over here. But heck we can review it again for everyone to see that you are nothing more than a lair as I have proven you are over and over.

Ready for it again because my Howlin collection of lies is ready. How did I know you would support this being permanant? Disgraceful.

[michaelje]

" Just remember this: he(TLBSHOW) believes George W. Bush is a traitor and is in bed with the terrorists and is a U.N. boy and is a commie liberal just like Bill Clinton."

If this is true, next time your in MA TLBSHOW, drinks are on me, pal.

[Quick1]

Interesting how you didn't even answer the question.