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

[Abundy]

I'll let you in on a dirty secret...I'm not a libertarian.

I'm a true conservative Republican.

Before you retort you'd better go study your history and law so that you can actually understand what qualifies one as "conservative" and "republican"...

[truenospinzone]

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.

I honestly have no idea what your point is. I don't mean that as an insult - I just have no idea what that has to do with the topic at hand. My hunch is that it's a typical "I think my pet topic (i.e. taxes taken from me and given to others) is the only thing anyone should ever complain about" post that we see far too often on FR. If you'd like to dispel that hunch, please elaborate.

[Bella_Bru]

Howlin, I do not believe, by any stretch of the imagination, that Bush is a traitor. But there is a point where you need to question whether or not it is wise to make the Patriot Act a permanent part of the fabric of our laws. Do not think for a moment that there will not be another Clinton, another Reno who could use something like the Patriot Act for THEIR dirty work.

In all the heady buzz of our side gaining control of the House and Senate, and having a President who is closer to our beliefs as a whole, unlike his predecessor, we cannot forget that it is not permanent.

Now, if we did have another Clinton/Reno type of administration, how easy would it be to label FReepers as potentional threats to the government? Is that what we want? How easy would it be, under a left looney-toon, to deem gun owners "potentional terrorists"?

[Howlin]

I see you showed up on FR only to post on this thread.

I'd say you were a disruptor, too, so I'm sure you two would get along.

[michaelje]

Interesting how you didn't even answer the question.

Read Post #205, champ.

[Howlin]

I am not discussing this act. I'll get to it on a day when I can put some time into verifying whether what is said in this article is even true.

Today I'm watching our military free Iraq. If I hadn't been pinged to this thread, I wouldn't even have looked at it today, as I make it a habit not to make snap decisions until I hear what the facts are.

[michaelje]

I see you showed up on FR only to post on this thread. I'd say you were a disruptor, too, so I'm sure you two would get along.

Been here since August of 2K buddy.

[Dane]

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

What ridiculous snide remarks. All I basically said is that how can you predict the future. You're the one who seems to be afraid of the future.

IMO, one can make his own future, but you seem to be so cynical that a Hillary Presidency is a certainty that you cynically throw up your hands and say, yes it will haapen, no matter what you say or do in the electoral arena.

JMO, but thank God you are not in the foxholes in Iraq with your contagious cynicism.

[Howlin]

Your only posts are on this thread.

[michaelje]

Too lazy to check my profile?

[TLBSHOW]

I am not discussing this act.

LOROF Yeah why don't you wait until its permanent...That is the howlin way as seen by your daily posts!

[thepitts]

I just talked to my congressmans DC staffer who hadn't even heard about this, so, is it even true?

[Quick1]

That's not answering the question that was posed to you. Perhaps it needs repeating: "It's time to play the dreaded Answer a Direct Question For Once game. Ready, Dane? Here goes: Do you honestly believe that only conservative Republicans will be in control of the Presidency and/or Congress for the next fifty years? Remember, it's a direct question. Yes or no. No tapdancing around the issue allowed. "

For the sake of argument, let's call Bush a conservative Republican.

[Howlin]

I checked your profile; and I can see that you haven't posted in a LONG time until this thread was put up.

[Quick1]

He's not saying that a Hillary presidency is a certainty, he's asking if you are certain that it will be ONLY Republicans controlling Washington. It is definitely a possibility that someone will get into power and abuse laws when given the chance.

Do you honestly believe that power does not corrupt?

[truenospinzone]

What ridiculous snide remarks

JMO, but thank God you are not in the foxholes in Iraq with your contagious cynicism.

Those ridiculous snide remarks. And once again, you've proven wholly unwilling or unable to answer a direct question on this or any other topic. You even managed to work in a "libertarian" ad hominem, even though until this post, yours was the only one that even mentioned the word.

I don't know why any of us even bother to entertain the thought that you're capable of honest, logical debate. I certainly won't make the mistake of thinking it anymore.

[michaelje]

Hmmm....was this question posed to Dane..."It's time to play the dreaded Answer a Direct Question For Once game. Ready, Dane?" or to michaelje.

Perhaps you need to read the post again.

[Howlin]

Unlike you, I make it a habit not to discuss things I don't know anything about.

[Dane]

That's not answering the question that was posed to you. Perhaps it needs repeating: "It's time to play the dreaded Answer a Direct Question For Once game. Ready, Dane? Here goes: Do you honestly believe that only conservative Republicans will be in control of the Presidency and/or Congress for the next fifty years? Remember, it's a direct question. Yes or no. No tapdancing around the issue allowed. "

For the sake of argument, let's call Bush a conservative Republican.

Uh quickie it would help if you actually directed the question at me with your "ping".

Second like I basically stated before, if you are so sure of the future can I get a stock tip, since you have thrown up your hands and admitted defeat that a Hillary Presidency is inevidible.

[jmc813]

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.

If neither of us are members of the Libertarian Party, why should we defend it?