patriot act - still good policy or no longer needed?

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 4:55 pm

Patriot Act renewal fails in Senate
GOP fights to save provisions before end-of-year deadline

Friday, December 16, 2005; Posted: 8:46 p.m. EST (01:46 GMT)

Alerts | What Is This? WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate on Friday rejected efforts to renew expiring provisions of the Patriot Act, dealing a major blow to President Bush and the Republican leadership.

Senators on both sides of the aisle argued that some of the act's provisions infringe on civil rights. The bipartisan group proposed a three-month extension to continue debate and amend certain provisions, but the Senate also rejected that proposal Friday.

The Senate needed 60 votes to override a filibuster and end debate, which is called "invoking cloture." Cloture would have brought the Patriot Act to a final vote, allowing the Senate to renew it by a simple majority.

But only 52 senators voted to cut off debate; 47 voted against cloture.

The move lays the groundwork for a high-stakes showdown.

Bush has said he would veto a three-month extension, arguing it would be inadequate. But without an extension, 16 provisions could expire at the end of the year. There's also the possibility the Senate could still manage to bring the Patriot Act to a vote before the December 31 deadline.

The Bush administration had lobbied intensely for making the provisions permanent. Top officials, including Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, had called lawmakers in hopes of swaying them to the administration's position. (Read what Bush has to say)

In a statement after the Senate's vote, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the provisions "are essential to our efforts in the war on terrorism and their loss will damage our ability to prevent terrorist attacks. Our nation cannot afford to let these important counterterrorism tools lapse."

The act, created after the September 11, 2001 attacks, allows the government broad authority to investigate people suspected of involvement in terrorist activities. Controversial measures include those allowing the FBI -- with a court order -- to obtain secret warrants for business, library, medical, and other records, and to get a wiretap on every phone a suspect uses.

Secret authorization?
As the Senate gathered Friday to debate whether the government had abused its authority, a major news story played a critical role.

The New York Times reported Friday that Bush, months after the September 11 attacks, "secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials."

Sources with knowledge of the program told CNN the report is accurate.

The report was "very, very (problematic), if not devastating" to the renewal effort, according to Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, who helped negotiate a compromise with House leaders on extending the provisions.

During Friday's session, senators held up copies of the New York Times report as a sign that the government could not be trusted with all the broad powers laid out in the Patriot Act. (Read about the report)

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said he had been unsure the night before how he would vote. "Today's revelation that the government listened in on thousands of phone conversations without getting a warrant is shocking and has greatly influenced my vote," he said. "Today's revelation makes it very clear that we have to be very careful. Very careful."

Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wisconsin, who voted against the original Patriot Act and led efforts to filibuster the current version, said, "I can't imagine a more shocking example of an abuse of power."

When it comes to discussion of the Patriot Act, Feingold said lawmakers must "come together" to simultaneously give the government the authority it needs "and protect the rights and freedoms of innocent citizens."

"We are a democracy -- let's have checks and balances," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, in an impassioned speech. "Let us have a government of checks and balances."

Republicans who voted against cloture included Sens. Chuck Hagel, John Sununu, Lisa Murkowski, and Larry Craig.

"I urge calm and sensitivity to the fundamental civil liberties of our country," said Craig.

Sununu said the government had provided no "substantive" material to show how proposed changes to some of the provisions could in any way undermine or weaken the government's ability to fight terrorism.

Kyl: 'No Middle Ground'
But Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona argued that the government has not abused its powers and that the Patriot Act should be renewed.

"You either vote yes to reauthorize or no not to reauthorize -- there is no middle ground," he said.

Citing Bush's threat to veto a three-month extension, Kyl added, "If you voted against cloture you are voting to allow the Patriot Act to expire.".

White House spokesman Scott McClellan, during his daily briefing Friday, was asked why the administration would oppose an extension.

"We've expressed our views how we believe the provisions should be permanent," he said. "And I think what's happening now is that some people are playing politics with this legislation."

Bush has called the act "essential to fighting the war on terror and preventing our enemies from striking America again."

Among the staunchest supporters of reauthorizing the provisions was Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who argued that voting against immediate reauthorization "amounts to defeat and retreat at home."

But due to the complexity of Senate rules, Frist ultimately voted against cloture. The vote allows him to try to bring the act up for another vote.

This week, the House of Representatives voted 251-174 to renew the 16 provisions, after striking a compromise that altered some of them.

BWahlberg · Post by **BWahlberg** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 11:10 pm

IMO the Patriot Act was a borderline illegal act put together that was pushed through congress with 9/11 still in the rearview mirror. I am personally overjoyed that it is currently on hold.

There are many parts of it that I had no problem with, but some of the more "extreme" measures were terrible. If you cannot get a warrant to get a wire tap/search a house/pull library records/hold a suspect in jail then you need to get more evidence, not just rely on some crap legislation.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:35 am

WHAT?!?! It never was a good policy. Tell me you're just kidding.

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:33 am

iaafan wrote:WHAT?!?! It never was a good policy. Tell me you're just kidding.

Let's see the choices here...on one hand we have the Patriot Act and its included controversial (for lack of a better word) law enforcement provisions. On the other hand, we have al Qaeda and its search for bigger and better ways to kill Americans.

As a law abiding citizen with nothing to hide, I'll choose the former.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:49 am

'93HonoluluCat wrote:
iaafan wrote:WHAT?!?! It never was a good policy. Tell me you're just kidding.
Let's see the choices here...on one hand we have the Patriot Act and its included controversial (for lack of a better word) law enforcement provisions. On the other hand, we have al Qaeda and its search for bigger and better ways to kill Americans.

As a law abiding citizen with nothing to hide, I'll choose the former.

For purposes of illustration only, the gist of what you just said would have made you an excellent Soviet citizen.

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 12:56 pm

It always struck me wrong to give up our freedoms to our government, in order to "allow" or govenment to protect our freedoms.

......but thats just me!

ChiOCat · Post by **ChiOCat** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:59 pm

I think that we had so many unused means before for tracking potential terrorists. Rather than start taking liberties away, just add more manpower so we can actually stay on top of illegals, or questionable legals.

My stepdad was repeated persecuted after moving to MT, and because so many were willing to give up their rights to fight the drug wars, he was legaly harrased by the Montana legal system and the border patrol.

He was a law abiding citizen with nothing to hide, but they sure can tie you up in the system for years if "they" get you in their sights.

PapaG · Post by **PapaG** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 6:02 pm

No attacks on US soil since the Act was instituted. Al Qaeda cells busted up from Oregon to Buffalo.

Yep, let's trash it and go back to the way things were. I know that I have been harrassed because of the Patriot Act on a daily basis ever since Congress passed it.

It's like 9/11 never happened to some of you people. Let's go back to cigars and chubby interns. Life was grand and the rodents weren't organizing at all.

ChiOCat · Post by **ChiOCat** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 6:07 pm

No attacks on US soil since....YET. I hope they are really stopping the terorists, but I don't really think you can completely stop these people by implementing things on our soil.

I was all for invading Iraq, because it's more the root of the problem than terorists coming here and using our internet in libraries.

Believe me, I hated, hate, and will continue to hate Bill Clinton. But I don't think most of the things in the Patriot Act were/are necessary.

PapaG · Post by **PapaG** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 6:38 pm

ChiOCat wrote:No attacks on US soil since....YET. I hope they are really stopping the terorists, but I don't really think you can completely stop these people by implementing things on our soil.

I was all for invading Iraq, because it's more the root of the problem than terorists coming here and using our internet in libraries.

Believe me, I hated, hate, and will continue to hate Bill Clinton. But I don't think most of the things in the Patriot Act were/are necessary.

I agree with much of what you just typed. I am by no means a big fan of taking away civil liberties. I do think that the Patriot Act has been demonized into being much more extreme and invasive to the overwhelming majority of Americans than it truly is.

Sidenote - I wonder if Harry Reid will regret saying "We killed the Patriot Act" to his fellow Democrats should, God forbid, anything major happen on our soil.

You can't be both for and against the same thing. It seems Dem leadership is having a hard time getting their true message across. Reid's poor performance on Face the Nation yesterday included two awkward utterances that "we are against evil terrorists". Yet in the next breath he is commenting on how poorly our enemies are being treated.

RyeCat · Post by **RyeCat** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 7:44 pm

Unfortunately, like most things in our world, only the negative points of the Patriot Act are brought to the forfront and those are what stay in the conscious of the public. Again, like most of our laws, it is sweeping and covers many things beyond the scope of what most are finding objectionable. One major and very important goal that the Patriot Act has achieved, is monitoring and trying to stop the financial flow of money from the U.S. to terrorists. Banks and financial institutions are required to follow strict laws and must perform many inquiries to verify the identity of customers and corresponding foreign accounts. While I don't agree with some aspects of the Patriot Act, I do appreciate it's intent and focus.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:03 pm

Good post, RyeCat. We need more discussion about what specific provisions of the Act ARE necessary and why there isn't another way to go about doing what they do without dismantling the separation of powers and civil liberties that have defined us as a country.

I'd like to hear what other provisions people do specifically want to keep and why. In cases like this, you have to be able to justify the YES vote as the NO vote should always be the default when it comes to expanding unrestrained government power to poke and prod into our lives.

If anyone wants to criticize politicians for the failure of the Patriot Act in the Senate, it is worth noting that the biggest opponent to the bill is a Senator from Idaho, who is a very conservative Republican. It's not a partisan issue when you get down to the underlying philosophy.

BWahlberg · Post by **BWahlberg** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:33 pm

BAC

Some of the points I don't mind;

- Sec 203 B & D - Information Sharing, allowing info from criminal probes to be shared amongts gov't agencies, a good way to save time & man hours between departments.

Some points that could work but need revision;

Roving Wiretaps (Sec 206) - Allows an authorized wire tap for all sorts of communication devices, almost an "umbrella" clause. On the other hand current verbage in this section allow the gov't to use wiretaps on anyone who has had "casual contact" with any sort of terror suspect. Say a terrorist looked at Bobcatnation, the gov't could wire tap us all.

Access to records (Sec 215) - Gov't officials have easier access to suspects records, however the "grey areas" in this section also allow almost anyone to have their library & bookstore records searched at any time, medical records too.

Points I don't like;

Sec 213 - Sneek and Peek, allows authorities to search a house/business without letting the owners know they were there. And the description in the section allows the "Sneek and Peek" for anyone who commits a crime, not just terror suspects.

-----

I get a kick out of the people who say, "Doesn't bother me, I have nothing to hide, I don't do anything wrong, so this won't affect me." While it might not, it's not what you do or don't do, it's what the government can do. The way it continues, everything we do will be monitored, and we'll be punished for the smallest infractions. I see this as a slippery slope. I pay my taxes to the government who, in theroy, is my employee, they do not need to have unlimited access to everything I do. This country wasn't founded on the principal that the government had complete control over us and access to all our info, why should it be now?

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:11 am

Patriot Act = more government power, which is very bad in my opinion.

Ben Franklin said it best, "those that are willing to give up Freedom for Liberty are deserving of neither."

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:34 am

Ben Franklin said it best, "those that are willing to give up Freedom for Liberty are deserving of neither."

guess that would include me, as i could care less if Bush wants to hear a conversation of mine discussing how proud we are that Anessa finally is pooping in her little baby potty rather than her pants

I don't see myself or my actions warranting any "spying" by the government, so i'm not worried about it being done to me. If I were of middle east decent with financial tie to the middle east still i may be annoyed with this policy. I do think the warrants needed to be obtained first, IF you have valid warrant I don't mind the wire taps.

RyeCat · Post by **RyeCat** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 5:26 pm

In reference to my earlier post about this, here is a link that lists all of the items covered by The Patriot Act. As I said, I think a lot of people don't know the full extent of it. I didn't know, until I look at this site, that the Patriot Act expedited benefits to public safety workers families.

Anyway - http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html