Patriot Act renewal fails in Senate

[Katman]

According to CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/....ap/index.html

Originally Posted by CNN

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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-Wisconsin, 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 December 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.

Hooray, first politics post. Discuss I guess.

[esskreemr]

Well, obviously voting against an invaluable tool such as the 'Patriot Act' would be unpatriotic. Who do we have running this country a bunch of leftist, marxist commies who think that big Gov needs a reason to allocate tax payer's money to monitor its own citizens?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
All posts to this thread are being logged and monitored by the Department of Homeland Security. All posters will subsequently be surreptitiously investigated by the FBI and a file of their activities will be kept if it is shown that they are a threat to the USof A and its interests. Of course, the US of A is interested in alot so suffice it to say that all posters in this thread are considered threats. You have been warned.

[jeff]

Wow, I'm quite surprised. That's not the outcome I expected. My reaction to this a non-partisan one, though I'm sure partisan discussion will follow...

[YankeeRebel]

Originally Posted by jeff

Wow, I'm quite surprised. That's not the outcome I expected. My reaction to this a non-partisan one, though I'm sure partisan discussion will follow...

Believe it or not, it's a coalition of left wing and right wing activists who are holding the bill up. People on both sides of the aisle believe that the current law is too invasive.

[L.O.A.S.]

I understand there were 4 republicans and 43 democrats against the bill.

[Inquartata]

Hard to tell---the Senate's rules are byzantine. Apparently Frist himself had to vote against the renewal in the end, just in order to get the chance to try for another vote later on...

Not surprising to see some Republicans deserting a lame-duck President at this juncture. I hope the results are not unfortunate. If there is an attack on the US which one of the powers granted by the PA act might have prevented, those who voted against cloture may be out of a job and a reputation.

[Gav]

So much for the sunset clause ...

This just in: http://www.theregister.com/2006/03/0...merrily_along/

Discuss

[Durando]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

I understand there were 4 republicans and 43 democrats against the bill.

Dude! A coallition of the willing in action! I heard that plucky little Andorra even threw in for the beer!

[Slim]

Originally Posted by Gav

So much for the sunset clause ...

This just in: http://www.theregister.com/2006/03/0...merrily_along/

Discuss

I must have missed the proceedings in which the NSA's surveillance program were ruled to be "illegal" as the author states. I must have also missed the impeachment hearings that would have started the nanosecond after this ruling came down.

If you're interested in prompting a discussion on the topic of the passing of the reworked Patriot Act, why not quote a "news" piece rather than a biased commentary by someone who's main writing focus isnt even politics?

This is trash. Discuss.

[Gav]

Originally Posted by Slim

I must have missed the proceedings in which the NSA's surveillance program were ruled to be "illegal" as the author states. I must have also missed the impeachment hearings that would have started the nanosecond after this ruling came down.

If you're interested in prompting a discussion on the topic of the passing of the reworked Patriot Act, why not quote a "news" piece rather than a biased commentary by someone who's main writing focus isnt even politics?

This is trash. Discuss.

Hello Slim!

Nice to see you are still around indulging in your usual quality 'chat'!

Hey, I passed on the article which seems pertinent based on this thread. Why not contact the journalist in question? Take a look at the website and you will see how you can do that - maybe the NSA will even read your positive feedback! Indeed, also note their "further reading" section near the bottom; where you can read all of their opinions and they even handily include the headlines! I know it's not the usual Fox news or other biased links that folks in this part of the board like to post up, but I like to stimulate debate every once in a while. I've no idea whether NSA surveilance is legal in the US or not - that is not what this article is about - but I'm pretty sure that your government watching your every move is not good. Maybe the soviets won after all?

[Slim]

Originally Posted by Gav

Hello Slim!

Nice to see you are still around indulging in your usual quality 'chat'!

Hey, I passed on the article which seems pertinent based on this thread. Why not contact the journalist in question? Take a look at the website and you will see how you can do that - maybe the NSA will even read your positive feedback! Indeed, also note their "further reading" section near the bottom; where you can read all of their opinions and they even handily include the headlines! I know it's not the usual Fox news or other biased links that folks in this part of the board like to post up, but I like to stimulate debate every once in a while. I've no idea whether NSA surveilance is legal in the US or not - that is not what this article is about - but I'm pretty sure that your government watching your every move is not good. Maybe the soviets won after all?

Heh heh. Had the "journalist" posted his article here, I would indeed do that. But, since you acted as his agent in this case by distributing his work, AND requested a discussion around it, the feedback goes to you. This is not a news article. It's a commentary. Post a news article, and I'll comment on the news. Post a commentary and I'm going to comment on the commentary.

Counter to your claims, my government does not have the inclination to watch my every move. They do however have the capability AND the inclination to watch every move of small groups of people fitting very specific profiles. And that's OK by me.

[ThatReallyHurt]

Originally Posted by Slim

Heh heh. Had the "journalist" posted his article here, I would indeed do that. But, since you acted as his agent in this case by distributing his work, AND requested a discussion around it, the feedback goes to you. This is not a news article. It's a commentary. Post a news article, and I'll comment on the news. Post a commentary and I'm going to comment on the commentary.

Counter to your claims, my government does not have the inclination to watch my every move. They do however have the capability AND the inclination to watch every move of small groups of people fitting very specific profiles. And that's OK by me.

What if you're listed as being in one of those small groups due to a mistake but you don't know it?

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by ThatReallyHurt

What if you're listed as being in one of those small groups due to a mistake but you don't know it?

What if you're blown up by one of those small groups due to an over-cautious approach?

James.

[keith]

Originally Posted by jBirch

What if you're blown up by one of those small groups due to an over-cautious approach?

James.

what if the government picks the small group of people by throwing darts at the telephone directory?

[jBirch]

Then they should invest in high-accuracy darts.

James.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by ThatReallyHurt

What if you're listed as being in one of those small groups due to a mistake but you don't know it?

Then those monitoring my life will quickly realize that none of my actions or people I communicate with fit the high profile target catagories, and they will move on.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by keith

what if the government picks the small group of people by throwing darts at the telephone directory?

I give the people picking the targets a bit more credit than that.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Slim

I give the people picking the targets a bit more credit than that.

Really?

Glad you have such profound trust in your government (current and future). Its touching.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by keith

Really?

Glad you have such profound trust in your government (current and future). Its touching.

Profound trust? No, not quite. Just a little knowledge about how things work. There are plenty of interesting targets available without having to resort to throwing darts.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by keith

Really?

Glad you have such profound trust in your government (current and future). Its touching.

Hey Keith,

Why the belief that the government is out to screw the citizenry?

James.