• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Senate Wises Up and Blocks Extension of "Patriot" Act

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I hope that damned "Patriot" Act expires and is never passed into law again:

Senate Rejects Extension of Patriot Act By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
1 minute ago

WASHINGTON - The Senate on Friday refused to reauthorize major portions of the USA Patriot Act after critics complained they infringed too much on Americans' privacy and liberty, dealing a huge defeat to the Bush administration and Republican leaders.

In a crucial vote early Friday, the bill's Senate supporters were not able to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster by Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and their allies. The final vote was 52-47.

President Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Republicans congressional leaders had lobbied fiercely to make most of the expiring Patriot Act provisions permanent.

They also supported new safeguards and expiration dates to the act's two most controversial parts: authorization for roving wiretaps, which allow investigators to monitor multiple devices to keep a target from evading detection by switching phones or computers; and secret warrants for books, records and other items from businesses, hospitals and organizations such as libraries.

Feingold, Craig and other critics said those efforts weren't enough, and have called for the law to be extended in its present form so they can continue to try and add more civil liberties safeguards. But Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert have said they won't accept a short-term extension of the law.

If a compromise is not reached, the 16 Patriot Act provisions expire on Dec. 31. Investigators will still be able to use those powers to complete any investigation that began before the expiration date, according to a provision in the original law.
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Terrorism
 
Last edited:
H

hipsterdufus

I hope Russ Feingold runs for President in 08 - he reminds me of Bobby Kennedy.

I think a three month extension is a good compromise to further debate provisions of the Patriot Act that violate each and every American's Civil Liberties.
 

Stace

Boobie Jubilee
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
7,255
Reaction score
364
Location
Clarksville, TN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I just read this story....good on the Senate!!
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Those in the Senate are trying to distance themselves from the failed and unconstitutional policies of this arrogant administration.

Thank God the nation is regaining some sanity.

"January 20th, 2009 Hang in there, America"
( My bumper sticker on my American made auto)
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
TimmyBoy said:
I hope that damned "Patriot" Act expires and is never passed into law again:



http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Terrorism
And your plan to stop terrorist from acting her is exactly what? What is your specific object to the patriot act and can you show where it has been abused?
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
FinnMacCool said:
Good. The patriot act is an attack on our civil libertires.
Then why are the Democrats so willing to let it stay in place for one more second?
 

Conflict

Banned
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
745
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
It's about time we got rid of that damn act. It was nothing less than unconstitutional in the first place. Nobody ever heard of terrorism until Bush (Curious George) took office. WHo does the world hate... the American people or the Bush clan?
 

Stace

Boobie Jubilee
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
7,255
Reaction score
364
Location
Clarksville, TN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Conflict said:
It's about time we got rid of that damn act. It was nothing less than unconstitutional in the first place. Nobody ever heard of terrorism until Bush (Curious George) took office. WHo does the world hate... the American people or the Bush clan?
Well, that depends on how you look at it....I mean, the majority supposedly voted him into power, as our leader, so if you hate Bush, by extension, you hate the American people...at least those that voted for him :mrgreen:
 

JustMyPOV

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Stinger said:
And your plan to stop terrorist from acting her is exactly what? What is your specific object to the patriot act and can you show where it has been abused?
It's not about whether or not it has been abused to date, it's about whether or not it can be abused at all. If it can be, it inevitably will be. The only problem that I have with the Patriot Act is the near total lack of judicial oversight. DoJ, DHS, and so on are extentions of the executive branch. Without it, we essentially become a police-state, and that is not a transition I believe we should be willing to make.

I suggest that in the event that there is "probable cause", the expanded powers of law enforcement should be available for them to fight terrorists. The only thing I'd like to see that's different is that each case of the use of these expanded powers should be reviewed by a judge within a period of 4 days from the time the operation begins, let's say, and that all of the information gathered as a result should be presented to the judge at that time. The judge can then determine if they should be allowed to continue with the operation and whether or not the evidence was obtained justly. Even if, however, the judge finds the initial reasoning for wire-tapping was not appropriate, if the evidence collected contains anything useful in the fight against terrorism, then obviously, law-enforcement should still be allowed to continue with the investigation. In my opinion, this provides enough leeway for law-enforcement to get the job done, while keeping intact judicial oversight, ensuring our civil liberties remain intact.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Then why are the Democrats so willing to let it stay in place for one more second?
I don't know what your talking about and I don't care. I'm not an effin democrat. This just goes to show how close minded people ont his forum can be. If you disagree with them 'Oh! they must be a democrat!'

I was simply stating its a good thing that patriot act wasn't extended. I don't play political games with you people, unlike some on here. I simply express my opinion. Check out the essay on my blog 'What do Parties Have To Do With IT?'
 

wrath

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
154
Reaction score
0
Location
Alexandria, VA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
JustMyPOV said:
It's not about whether or not it has been abused to date, it's about whether or not it can be abused at all. If it can be, it inevitably will be. The only problem that I have with the Patriot Act is the near total lack of judicial oversight. DoJ, DHS, and so on are extentions of the executive branch. Without it, we essentially become a police-state, and that is not a transition I believe we should be willing to make.
So if anything has the potential for abuse it should be rejected? Just about every bill that has ever been passed into law has the potential for abuse. Most have been and are manipulated to some degree. For me the key is the oversight and interpertation of the law. If it is not watched carefully it will be abused sooner or later. Human nature IMO.

JustMyPOV said:
I suggest that in the event that there is "probable cause", the expanded powers of law enforcement should be available for them to fight terrorists. The only thing I'd like to see that's different is that each case of the use of these expanded powers should be reviewed by a judge within a period of 4 days from the time the operation begins, let's say, and that all of the information gathered as a result should be presented to the judge at that time. The judge can then determine if they should be allowed to continue with the operation and whether or not the evidence was obtained justly. Even if, however, the judge finds the initial reasoning for wire-tapping was not appropriate, if the evidence collected contains anything useful in the fight against terrorism, then obviously, law-enforcement should still be allowed to continue with the investigation. In my opinion, this provides enough leeway for law-enforcement to get the job done, while keeping intact judicial oversight, ensuring our civil liberties remain intact.
I do, however, like the core of your suggestion here. Very well thought out. Logical and fair. You must be an old style Democrat the likes we haven't seen since FDR and JFK. Offering rational options........ refreshing! The only thing I would rather see is a panel of judges decide probable cause and whether further investigation is warranted. I've seen too many judges that can't resist legislating from the bench and would like to minimize the risk. I would also hope that these judgements could be handled expeditiously as many of these types of cases are time sensitive.
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2005
Messages
845
Reaction score
305
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Stace said:
Well, that depends on how you look at it....I mean, the majority supposedly voted him into power, as our leader, so if you hate Bush, by extension, you hate the American people...at least those that voted for him :mrgreen:
Well, wasn't it only around 55% voter turnout, and Bush got a little over half of that....and if hating Bush means you hate them.... 26% Yep, that sounds about right. Although hate is kind of a strong word, more like dislike bordering on disgust.
 

Stace

Boobie Jubilee
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
7,255
Reaction score
364
Location
Clarksville, TN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Befuddled_Stoner said:
Well, wasn't it only around 55% voter turnout, and Bush got a little over half of that....and if hating Bush means you hate them.... 26% Yep, that sounds about right. Although hate is kind of a strong word, more like dislike bordering on disgust.
I can accept that.....That's still a lot of people to be disgusted with, though :mrgreen:
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
14 posts with not one specific problem they can point out...

Also, no one has still rectified their issues with the decades old RICO laws, which the Patriot Act was built upon...

It is nothing more than a document that added "terrorists" to the laws that were made to fight "organized crime"...

Anyone having a coniption fit should've had their panties in a bunch long before the Patriot Act ever existed...

Me thinks we have a problem with the authors (R) and not the document itself...

AND if anyone disagrees with this assertation, pointing it out NOW shows the lack of abilty to point to the problems with it in the first place...Saying "It's bad" without showing why you believe so is weak...
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
cnredd said:
14 posts with not one specific problem they can point out...

Also, no one has still rectified their issues with the decades old RICO laws, which the Patriot Act was built upon...

It is nothing more than a document that added "terrorists" to the laws that were made to fight "organized crime"...

Anyone having a coniption fit should've had their panties in a bunch long before the Patriot Act ever existed...

Me thinks we have a problem with the authors (R) and not the document itself...

AND if anyone disagrees with this assertation, pointing it out NOW shows the lack of abilty to point to the problems with it in the first place...Saying "It's bad" without showing why you believe so is weak...
But in these peoples minds Bush is the next Hitler so they make up this little scenario in their heads that Bush perpetrated 9-11 to to turn the U.S. into a police state just like hitler did with the Reichstagg fire.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
But in these peoples minds Bush is the next Hitler so they make up this little scenario in their heads that Bush perpetrated 9-11 to to turn the U.S. into a police state just like hitler did with the Reichstagg fire.
That's only on Mondays...

Tuesdays they go back to saying how dumb he is and couldn't be smart enough to think something like that up...
 

Stace

Boobie Jubilee
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
7,255
Reaction score
364
Location
Clarksville, TN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
cnredd said:
That's only on Mondays...

Tuesdays they go back to saying how dumb he is and couldn't be smart enough to think something like that up...
Hey now, play nice.....

You want to know what we think is wrong with the Patriot Act?

Well, let's see here....the government has no need to see my medical records. Or the ability to sample and catalog my genetic information. That one's called the PRIVACY Act :lol:

Unless I'm trying to check out books on how to make bombs, why should they have access to my library records?

And let's just start with that, and go from there.

So, I've presented a couple of topics...your debate, sir? :mrgreen:
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Stace said:
Hey now, play nice.....

You want to know what we think is wrong with the Patriot Act?

Well, let's see here....the government has no need to see my medical records. Or the ability to sample and catalog my genetic information. That one's called the PRIVACY Act :lol:

Unless I'm trying to check out books on how to make bombs, why should they have access to my library records?

And let's just start with that, and go from there.

So, I've presented a couple of topics...your debate, sir? :mrgreen:

Three questions have you had your civil rights violated by the patriot act, do you know anyone who has had their rights violated by the patriot act, and have you heard anywhere of peoples rights being violated by the patriot act?
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
1,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Three questions have you had your civil rights violated by the patriot act, do you know anyone who has had their rights violated by the patriot act, and have you heard anywhere of peoples rights being violated by the patriot act?
You trust the government more than I do.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051217/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_nsa

I'm sure people made the same argument for the Fairness Doctrine at first, but look what happened in the end?
 
Last edited:
H

hipsterdufus

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Three questions have you had your civil rights violated by the patriot act, do you know anyone who has had their rights violated by the patriot act, and have you heard anywhere of peoples rights being violated by the patriot act?
I would add the word "yet" to the end of this statement.
BTW - How would I know if any of the three questions were true or false?
We don't have access to the data.

I would echo the sentiments of Barak Obama here:

A belief that we are connected as one people. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief - I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper - that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. "E pluribus unum." Out of many, one.
http://www.documenting-democracy.org/archives/2004/07/text_of_barak_o.html

Damn - I hope Obama runs for President in 08. Carpe diem!
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
FinnMacCool said:
I don't know what your talking about and I don't care. I'm not an effin democrat. This just goes to show how close minded people ont his forum can be. If you disagree with them 'Oh! they must be a democrat!'
Can you point to where I said YOU were a Democrat? You DID support thier not wanting to make it permanent, but if it is SO BAD why have it for another minute, hence my question if it is as bad as Democrats, or yourself, say it is why not end it right now, every provision.

I was simply stating its a good thing that patriot act wasn't extended. I don't play political games with you people, unlike some on here. I simply express my opinion. Check out the essay on my blog 'What do Parties Have To Do With IT?'
Why so touchy? And why get rid of it if it has, as all reports show, prevented further terrorist attacks? How have you personally had your rights infringed upon by the Patriot Act?
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
JustMyPOV said:
It's not about whether or not it has been abused to date, it's about whether or not it can be abused at all. If it can be, it inevitably will be.
This applies equally to domestic search warrants signed by local courts. Should we get rid of them too. The search warrants issued under the Patriot Act are issued under the FISC and reviewed by the congress after the fact. We have no evidence, not a shred, that it has been abused.

The only problem that I have with the Patriot Act is the near total lack of judicial oversight.
There is quite a bit of judical oversite. And everytime it has been reviewed by the courts it has been found to be constitutional.
 

JustMyPOV

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
cnredd said:
14 posts with not one specific problem they can point out...

Also, no one has still rectified their issues with the decades old RICO laws, which the Patriot Act was built upon...

It is nothing more than a document that added "terrorists" to the laws that were made to fight "organized crime"...

Anyone having a coniption fit should've had their panties in a bunch long before the Patriot Act ever existed...

Me thinks we have a problem with the authors (R) and not the document itself...

AND if anyone disagrees with this assertation, pointing it out NOW shows the lack of abilty to point to the problems with it in the first place...Saying "It's bad" without showing why you believe so is weak...
Firstly, my "panties" have been in a bunch since this legislation passed erroneously and hastily in the aftermath of 9/11. Also, I did say exactly what my problem was with this bill and I'll say it again.
THE LACK OF JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT.

I also suggested a manner in which the extended powers could be kept while increasing the involvement of the courts in the process. It's at the bottom of page 1 of this thread, in case you missed it.
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
hipsterdufus said:
I hope Russ Feingold runs for President in 08 - he reminds me of Bobby Kennedy.

I think a three month extension is a good compromise to further debate provisions of the Patriot Act that violate each and every American's Civil Liberties.
I agree! I really like Feingold a lot, a true man of conviction! As you know he was the ONLY Senator who did not vote to authorize Bush to start a war. I would actually choose him over Hillary if given the opportunity but of course would choose Hillary over anyone the Republicans would ever nominate.

Hot rumor from Navy Pride - Republicans will nominate Joe Leibermann as their Presidential candidate in 2008....Book it! :2funny:
 
Top Bottom