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
Some of my lawyer friends think that under the patriot act Right to Life could be defined as a domestic terrorist group, if the administration in power at the time saw fit
I know what you're getting at. The constitution, like it OR not, has evolved over the past 200+ years.
Through illegal means perpetrated by liberals. If you want the Patriot Act permenant, get an amendment to that Constitution, if you can.
They are so concerned about these issues that this is brought up when most reporters and Americans have their attention diverted elsewhere. There was no reason for them to do it now, which really troubles me the most.
I hope your right, I have not heard a single reason why it should be extended.
No, its worse. It is what career GS-4's supervised by career GS-5's will do with this power. We have just seen how you deal with foreign threats to our security.
And the people who believe that the New York Times's word is next to the word of God were out in full force also.
PERZACTLY! Funny how I was posting about this on PP and you were flagging me here. GMTA!
80% of the entire Federal budget is used to fund items that violate the constituion.
I'd concentrate on repealing the income tax and eliminating the Department of Education and Energy before wasting my time with this.
Again, conservative judges will always grant permission for wiretaps and searches anyway.
This law simply enables law enforcemnt to bypass foolish liberal judges who have a nasty habit of preventing law enforcement from doing thier job, which is to arrest, not try, terrorists.
No one is saying it is a certainty except you when you intentionally mis-represent the statements of indivdiuals trying to educate you.
The point of every post to you is that the Constitution, and the limitations it places on government, was/were created for the eventuality of the type of corrupt, socialist, power-mad administration that would come with a Hillaryesque president. The Founders believed they could predict the future - in that power corrupts.
No one is saying they know who will be president in the future - what they are saying is that our theory of government is premised upon giving as little power as possible to the government because YOU CAN NEVER BE SURE WHO WILL GET TO EXERCISE THAT POWER.
Have you got it through your thick skull yet, or are you just plain incapable of learning?
Pure socialist/liberal bullshit. You won't ever hear a conservative republican (or a, gasp, libertarian) utter those words and mean them iwth respect to interpreting the Consitution. Let me guess, you love Justices Douglas, Warren and Burger?
Dane, you keep talking like that and you will fully expose yourself for the liberal democrat that most of us know you to be.
Huh you mean that there isn't a threat today of anthrax and other biological agents being used by whackos on innocent people. Sorry that you are so blind to the threat. I don't think that Washington/Jefferson/Madison would take the threat so lightly if they had to deal with such threats in the 18th century, IMO.
I never said there was not a threat...in fact, if you look back at my posts you will find one where I acknowlege that the threat exists.
But that point is irrelevant to the fact that your statement brands you as a socialist liberal.
The Constitution is not a "living, breathing document" that changes as Society evolves. It specifically provides for a process for change in response to our evolving society. That process is called the amendment process.
Your desire to ignore that process based on a changing world illumates your liberal and socialist ideology.
Washington/Jefferson/Madison would demand the Constitution be followed and require an amendment(s) be passed. End of discussion.
No one is saying it is a certainty except you when you intentionally mis-represent the statements of indivdiuals trying to educate you.The point of every post to you is that the Constitution, and the limitations it places on government, was/were created for the eventuality of the type of corrupt, socialist, power-mad administration that would come with a Hillaryesque president. The Founders believed they could predict the future - in that power corrupts.
No one is saying they know who will be president in the future - what they are saying is that our theory of government is premised upon giving as little power as possible to the government because YOU CAN NEVER BE SURE WHO WILL GET TO EXERCISE THAT POWER.
How about it, O Wise and All-Knowing Constitutional Scholar?
How about it, O Wise and All-Knowing Constitutional Scholar?
And you can never be sure who will be there plotting to kill us and take away our freedoms, be they foreign or domestic. We're at war with an enemy that is not traditional and has not been seen in the history of warfare.
Oh I know you will go on a tirade implying by using the term domestic, I mean you. I don't. I am talking about terrorist cells across the country and the world who wish to do harm to you and me and they have to be dealt with, before they cause mass destruction. We live in a different world today and I am glad there are people in our current government who are willing to take on this hard task, to preserve our freedoms, and that you are not in there right now worrying and handwrining that actions taken today to get rid of an immediate threat will be used by someone lacking character later on.
I will cross that bridge when I get there.
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.