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
What gungrabber rhetoric???? Please if you want to live in the 18th century where jets as weapons were not possible, that's fine with me. That's your right as an American.
But please don't use the late 20th century invention called the internet to prosthylitize your rhetoric like the islamic fascists.
Unfortunately with such 21st century realities, such as the easy availiabilty of such agents such as anthrax and other biological and chemical weapons that can be used by whackos, the 18th century world many Constituional purists long for will never be again.
But we can fight the whackos and keep the rights perscribed by the Founders, IMO, and that is what GW Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Ashcroft are trying to do and the squealing is coming from Bush opponents such as the New York Times, the ACLU, and people on FR who are more than willing to listen to their squealing(mostly Libertarians).
Like I have stated many times on this thread, I am going to trust the current administration and not the New York Times.
I understand it, I read the article, but it seems that those who did not like the Patriot act(i.e Bush administration) in the first place(New York Times, Libertarians, TLBshow and other fringers) used this New York Times article to basically have an orgiastic bash against Bush and his administration over a rumor.
The agenda has been exposed, IMO.
Oh BTW, I am pasting my first post to this thread below to prove my above point.
looks like Drudge has now linked to the times story and its on his site(TLBshow)
Interesting that you left out the preface New York "to the times story", in your above italicized passage.
The New York Times is certainly no friend of conservatives and is trying to get some conservatives up in and arms and why am I not surprised you took the bait, TLB.
46 posted on 04/09/2003 10:31 AM PDT by Dane [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies | Report Abuse
"Local" colloquialisms are no excuse for hidng an agenda, IMHO. And in this case of a person on FR(TLBSHOW) and an always paranoid source(Sierra Times) using a rumor trumped up by an adversary of conservatives, The New York Times, to further their own agenda has been exposed.
Like I said before I will trust Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft.
You can trust anyone you want, and in this case you and TLB want to trust the New York Times. I will advise you though, IMO, that the New York Times is 99.9% of the time is wrong, but you will have to find that out for yourself.
There is nothing wrong with that. There is also nothing wrong with discussing the possibilities. Best to keep one eye open and watch what the government (no matter which party is in control) is doing.
It's not them we're worried about.
It's what President Rodham will do with the Patriot Act that's sparking concern.
My point is that with the amount of information the Government already coerces from you, its way too late to start worrying about the provisions of the Patriot Act, whose effect on 99.9% of Americans will be nil.
The need to be able to identify, penetrate, and neutralize enemies of the state trumps whatever "freedoms" you think you'll be losing.
People who have no problem telling the IRS their life story every April 15th seem pretty silly opposing a law meant to keep us safe.
The FBI, CIA and NSA all use IRS info, as welll as banks, credit reporting agencies, utility companies, whatever it takes to catch a national security threat.
When is the last time you ever heard of a GOP appointee judge refusing a request from law enforcement for a wiretap or search?
If the subjects are Americans they will still get a trial and legal representation.
If they're not American citizens and they're suspected of no good, they should be checked out and deported if clean , if dirty held as long as necessary.
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.