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 will trust the judgements of GW Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Rice and Ridge over the likes of the New York Times editorial board, Adam Clymer, Maureen Dowd, RW Apple, and Paul Krugman( and to add), the ACLU, Libertarians, Phyliss Schafley, and other rightwing permanantly malcontet groups.
The Constitution is based on the concept of NOT fully trusting ANYONE in power. That's why putting sunset provisions in the Patriot Act was a good idea - after four years, we can re-visit the act and see which provisions actually did anything to fight terrorism and which ones didn't, and which ones were abused and which ones were benign.
Nice to see that you have no problem with shreading the Constitution. Are you sure you are on the right internet forum?
The majority of Americans have no clue what is in the Patriot Act. They do not realize that with a simple change in political climate, groups like the NRA could be labeled as terrorists.
Oh, I highly doubt the Founders of this nation would see anything patriotic about the Patriot Act.
They knew that freedom has some risks, but they were willing to take those risks. I guess this generation is full of chickenshits.
They are corrupt politicians. Sorry, that was redundant.
Nope just know the intent of good people, not hyperbolic banterings of people who get all hot and bothered by a New York Times article.
John Ashcroft is a defender of the 2nd amendment and always will be.
Phyliss Schaflley and the GOA can jump in the sack with the ACLU and the New York Times. The thing that tells me is that the old addage "opposites attract" is wrong.
This tells me that permanantly malcontnent and paranoid right wing groups(Phyliss Schafley and GOA) are attracted to permanantly malcontnent and paranoid leftwing groups such as the ACLU and New York Times in the common cause of paranoia.
well that jus means that I will have to work hard in the electoral arena to make sure that a Hillary presidency doesn't happen.
And that miffs you since you can't an idealogical pure vote for Harry Browne in the future.
Semms that you would give up the War on Terroism, because you are in the fetal position in the corner sucking your thumb worrying about a Hillary presidency.
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.