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]

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.

Dane, will another Janet Reno have these good intents and be defenders of the 2A? Why are you so willing to give future liberals such unrestricted power? I really don't get it.

[Freedom2specul8]

"If they make guns illegal, then you shouldn't have them. So whats your point?"

Your fr homepage says you are pro-gun...why would you be so willing to just let your self-defense go? True Pro-Gun folks hold the opposite view point.

[michaelje]

If your going to argue that its your G-d given right to own a gun, spare me please. If you argue another point, I'm interested in debating.

[Belial]

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.

Dane, I hate to break it to you, but you don't really know Ashcroft, Bush or Cheney. Nor do you know any of the columnists who write for the Times. You have your beliefs about their "hearts" and intentions. And you are catholic in your beliefs. Take that into consideration.

Now weigh the actual text of the Patriot Act. Imagine another political regime in power. Consider the possibilities, when "good people" aren't running the government.

[TLBSHOW]

I always say we have to keep the republicans feet to the fire.......

You're answer proves me right on that.... LOL

Ever hear of the constitution, The Bill Of rights or are they meaningless now? You know this kind of stuff is what I feared from Gore and Clinton and the rats, not from Republicans.

Heck we own the Senate and the Republicans can't even get a Judge confirmed there. Maybe its a good thing and I need to switch my thoughts about it. (Maybe)

[jmc813]

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.

So because Dane will be campaigning for Republicans, we can all rest easy. We'll never have liberals in power again. Nope. Never.

[michaelje]

I stated in a previous post that I support the second amendment. If legislation passes that deems firearms ownership otherwise, I would not act contrary to the law.

[TLBSHOW]

If they make guns illegal, then you shouldn't have them. So whats your point? (michaelje)

Nice to see that you have no problem with shreading the Constitution. Are you sure you are on the right internet forum? (Bella_Bru)

BUMP

[Belial]

a.)Al Gore is a proponent of the "living constitution" doctrine.

So the constitution shouldn't change? Should slaves still get 3/5 of a vote?

b.)Our rights do not come from the Constitution. Care to try again?

Yes they do. Just ask the people of Iraq. A big cloud man in the sky doesn't rain rights down on our head. The reason you can't be tortured for 8 months is not the grace of God...it's the law.

[Freedom2specul8]

Great post! Just who will get the power next time around..hillary?

[Dane]

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.

Let me clean that up a little bit. I tend to push the post button in haste towards people who get the vapors over a New York Times article.

Well that just 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 cast an idealogical pure vote for Harry Browne in the future.

Seems that you would give up the War on Terrorism, because you are in the fetal position in the corner sucking your thumb worrying about a Hillary presidency.

[PatrioticAmerican]

I thought that the PATRIOT act was both legal and moral?? So, if it is, why the discussion? It should be permanent, shouldn't it? /sarcasm

[GSWarrior]

Who didn't see this coming?

[jmc813]

If your going to argue that its your G-d given right to own a gun, spare me please.

Well, that's what I was going to argue.

If you argue another point, I'm interested in debating.

OK, let's try this. Hillary Clinton is elected president. Using the PATRIOT Act, she declares all FReepers who speak out against her to be "terrorists" (read the Act, it could happen), and has all of them arrested, declares Free Republic a "terrorist" site, and has it shut down. Will you still be happy with the Patriot Act?

[Freedom2specul8]

All I can say is: http://www.jpfo.org/

[jmc813]

If legislation passes that deems firearms ownership otherwise, I would not act contrary to the law.

If you were around during the time of the Revolution, would you have been a loyalist to the crown? To do otherwise would be to act contrary to the law.

[michaelje]

Thanks Kim, Ive been to that site before.

[Dane]

Ever hear of the constitution, The Bill Of rights or are they meaningless now? You know this kind of stuff is what I feared from Gore and Clinton and the rats, not from Republicans

Yep what good is a Constitution when there are people out there ready to incinerate it by incinerating America.

Sorry TLB, you can go on your purist tirades, but I will trust the judgements of the President, the Vice-President, and the Attorney general.

Not people who crown themselves the purist of the pure who beleive and pontificate about a New York Times article.

[Stew Padasso]

"Where is the argument?"

IT will be pressed against the heads of all those who cheerlead and allow confiscation to happen, thats where.

[thepitts]

I appreciate your reply, but if firearms were to be made illegal, then frankly, you shouldn't own any. Where is the argument?

Will you lead the revolution?