Patriot Act Renewal Blocked by Senate

[DCrazy]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/16/ ... index.html

Good news from Washington, folks. 47 senators blocked renewal of the Patriot Act, and at the current rate it expires on 12/31. Here's to hoping it gets neutered over Christmas!

[Top Wop]

Its about time. I understand this kind of security in extreme circumstances but September 11 occured 4 years ago now and theres no longer a need for it now. The CIA and FBI should work smarter, then there wont be a need for such legislation.

[Zuruck]

Yep, even the politicians are seeing through the bull now. Spying on Americans, which is all the Patriot Act really does, is not needed. It was smokescreened in and now people are standing up to it, I'm glad to see even Republicans are fighting it.

[Pugwash]

We can all agree that a big brother scenario is bad. The expiration of this bill sounds great in principle until you read what actually expires here. I would have agreed whole heartedly with the earlier posts until I read this link.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/16/ ... index.html

Only section 218 seems bad to me as it is too vague and could be used to invade a non terrorists privacy. It seems more like "big brother" paranoia is the driving force behind removing them not common sense.

These measures allow the goverment to watch suspected terrorists and their friends. Any evidence found would be inadmissible for say a drugs possesion trial (once 218 is removed). I for one have nothing to fear from these measures unlike those funding Terrorism.

September 11 occured 4 years ago now and theres no longer a need for it now.

I fear that is just plain wrong! Complacency is a terrorists best friend. Well that and the Saudis.

[Zuruck]

Pugwash, it's a start. What we needed, is to not let the Patriot Act be extended indefinitely, and that is what they have done. For me, the Patriot Act is bad, but the best thing out of this is Republicans standing up to the White House and its Los Pepes in Congress. Instead of fearing the Bush/Rove retaliation machine, they are standing up for both themselves and their constituents.

[Behemoth]

Good.

[fyrephlie]

the patriot act was one thing that 'conspiracy theorists' point to as 'the reason for 9/11 staging'. between this act and the war, 9/11 opened the 'terror' door for government to step all over peoples rights.

anyway, i think in theory the patriot act was a 'good idea', the current system for identifying threats of any type is difficult and arduous, but it seems like a cop out. the laws, and regulations are there to protect the innocent from unneccesary 'shoot first, ask questions later' type 'persecution'.

instead of making it easier to catch bad guys... just get better people to do the job. it's like a GABBAGABBAHEY, yeah it gets you what you need, but you just don't feel like you accomplished anything.

im tired and rambling... sorry. i will try better later.

[Will Robinson]

There should be a line item veto for the president so he could cut the crap and not have any excuses for passing crap bills attached to good legislation out of fear of cutting the good parts...not to mention all the congressional pork that could be cut from the process!
The Patriot Act has some important parts that we need and our president and congressional representatives are so inbred and disfunctional that Jerry Springer would be afraid to do a show on them!!

John McCain attached his anti-torture bill to an appropriations bill to fund the troops so Bush would have to cut funding to the troops if he wanted to veto the anti-torture bill.... so then Sen. Stevens from Alaska attached a pro ANWR oil drilling bill to the same bill and McCain complained that Stevens was wrong to force him to have to vote on it that way!?!?!!

Doesn't anyone else think that is completely hypocritical and much more important, doesn't anyone think that the press is completely full of ★■◆● for letting a process like this become status quo?!?!

Where's the f***ing outrage at our press for playing this game where they will present McCains unhappiness with Stevens as a legitimate story and ignore the hypocrisy of how he did the exact same thing?!?

Why don't most young people today know how legislation is really passed and instead rely on 30 second sound bites to give them their opinions on issues?!? Who the f**k did this to our country?!?
We deserve to be over run by a third world fundamentlist whacko country and enslaved for rearing such ignorant children!

[Kilarin]

John McCain attached his anti-torture bill to an appropriations bill to fund the troops so Bush would have to cut funding to the troops if he wanted to veto the anti-torture bill

Not disagreeing at all about the hypocricy among senators about the way we attach things to bills,

BUT...

Don't you think its a bit SAD that the question of whether or not we torture prisoners is even a QUESTION in the United States of America?

Kilarin

[fyrephlie]

its not new... or innovative.

'japanese internment camps'

[Kilarin]

japanese internment camps

They certainly WERE a shameful blot on our history, but the Japanese Internment Camps never, to my knowledge, used torture. I'm quite willing to be corrected on this point if you have a reliable source.

Kilarin

[fyrephlie]

no ... i don't beleive there was ever any torture... just internment without due process... the point i am getting at is 'government exceeding' or 'inventing new' limits.

[Birdseye]

Anybody supporting the "Patriot Act", pinnacle of double speak, shall never get a vote from me. Never.

I am still shocked that so many of my fellow Americans support such a bill.

[Will Robinson]

Anybody supporting the "Patriot Act", pinnacle of double speak, shall never get a vote from me. Never.

I am still shocked that so many of my fellow Americans support such a bill.

I think there are some important things in there that need to be preserved and the process that the two parties use to gain sound-bite-advantages over each other is taking priority over the important parts of the legislation. The press was our last hope to keep the congress in line and they have turned into useless merchants of crap instead of the keepers of the truth....

[Will Robinson]

....Don't you think its a bit SAD that the question of whether or not we torture prisoners is even a QUESTION in the United States of America?

Kilarin

I'd call it unfortunate instead of sad because I believe we shouldn't have torture as "official" policy but at the same time I hope the commanders in the field would always use it at their own discretion as I believe they always have.
Now that slamming Bush has taken such a high priority the dirty little secrets we used to keep about our necessary evils are no longer kept unspoken. what used to be out of bounds for political use is now in play no matter the damage done...
For this I blame the left for having no message, no plan and no integrity. If they had those things they would be able to deal with Bush without having to undermine our security in so many ways like they've been doing lately.

On the "no message" example I simply point to Pelosi's statement that the democrats in '06 will have "no position" on Iraq! How can that ★■◆● be allowed to continue to indict the Bush administration for it's methods when they, as a party, have decided that there is no position to hold on Iraq?!?!

Both parties, and politicians in general, always suck...but the democrats of late are sinking down to previously unheard of depths of suckage! They should be temporarily disqualified from the process, ★■◆● slapped and told to come back once they have a plan, even a bad plan would be a step up, since their current tactics have become detrimental to the game itself!

[Behemoth]

I have never supported the idea of a bill like this,

not that it matters they spy on you so much nowadays anyway.

[Birdseye]

There may be things of use, sure. But as long as anyone, with virtually no discretion, can be deemed an 'enemy combatant' and lose their rights as an American I can't support it.

[Kilarin]

I believe we shouldn't have torture as "official" policy but at the same time I hope the commanders in the field would always use it at their own discretion as I believe they always have.

I understand that many people feel that we have to do bad things in order to defend the good guys. But how far should we go? A little roughing up? Some broken bones? How about using a car battery and some jumper cables? Would you approve of branding irons and pulling out fingernails with pliers? And if we really needed it, I mean, if it was important for us good guys, how about raping the guys sister while he watches, sometimes that can get them to talk.

No, I don't think we are doing most of that right now, at least I certainly hope not. But we are actively lowering the standards against it.

The excuse that "It's necessary to use torture to protect the *good guys*" has been used by the Japanese, the Vietnamese, the Nazi's, the Soviets, and right now, is used commonly by al qaeda. If torturing prisoners is a "dirty little secret" that is necessary for the maintenance of the U.S., I'm not certain the U.S. is worth maintaining anymore. What is the point of fighting the bad guys if we are just going to become like them?

I repeat: it is a terribly sad thing that whether or not we should torture prisoners (officially or unoffically) is a point of contention right now.

Kilarin

[Phoenix Red]

Kilarian:

Remeber that thread from here not that long ago with interrogation methods? How about the one that they said tends to work within 30 seconds called "waterboarding" which causes exactly no pain, just makes them think they're being drowned? "Scary" is not my definition of draconian abuse of power.

You can make that arguement both ways. The army exists in order to kill people, and getting the job done with minimal damage to themselves is their main priority. Particularly gruesom (or, if you prefer your constitution's wording, cruel and unusual) methods should be more out of bounds, but getting someone to talk can save a lot of lives, civilian or military.

[woodchip]

Anyone here remember "The Wall" as imposed by one Jamie Gorelik? That divide between internal security apparatii such as the FBI and the external such as the CIA? The Patriot Act was to do away with this exclusionary zone and let both agencies share and use assets to keep another 9/11 from happening. So by doing away with the Patriot Act are we now going back to the good 'ole days of yesteryear where terrorist will have the upper hand? I know, it has been such a long time since 9/11 that it is only a dim memory but mark my words. When the next attack comes there will be another commission and the question will arise as to why the Patriot Act was eliminated when everyone darn well knew another attack was waiting to happen. Then watch how the politicians start blaming one another.
Sleep tight sweetlings, for now our country will be a little less safe.

[Kilarin]

Particularly gruesom (or, if you prefer your constitution's wording, cruel and unusual) methods should be more out of bounds, but getting someone to talk can save a lot of lives, civilian or military.

Same excuse used by the Vietnamese. But we were all disgusted when we heard how they treated their prisonsers. "Crimes against humanity" was the term I believe.

The geneva convention was supposed to detail how "civilized" nations should treat prisoners of war. I don't buy that just because the war on terror isn't an ordinary war we should throw out the geneva conventions and start torturing prisoners. This war isn't ABOUT military might. To win this war, we should have taken the moral high ground. Instead of specifically looking for ways to avoid the Geneva Convention, G. W. Bush should have announced right up front on day one of the war in Afghanistan that despite all of the irregularities, we were going to treat all prisoners under that accord. Why? Because WE ARE THE GOOD GUYS. And the good guys don't make excuses to get away with mistreating prisoners.

Sleep tight sweetlings, for now our country will be a little less safe.

"Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

Herbert Hoover was a bigger threat to the freedom of this nation than Osama ever was, or ever will be. Outside forces can do some damage, but nothing we can not recover from. Inside forces can destroy our nation by devouring the very freedom we are founded upon.

Kilarin

[Will Robinson]

....Outside forces can do some damage, but nothing we can not recover from. Inside forces can destroy our nation by devouring the very freedom we are founded upon.

Kilarin

What makes you so sure we aren't founded on many of the very same tactics used today?
Were the British safe from torture at the hands of our newly formed army? Conversely, did the British ship our boys off to the prison ships in the the harbor so they could enjoy tea and crumpets or were they never heard from again because they were tortured and killed in the bowels of the floating dungeons?

I think it's naive to think we didn't always use these tactics and that you wouldn't do it too if you were in the fight and thought the enemy in your custody knew the time and place of the next roadside bomb that was going to rip the life and limb from your fellow soldiers!

The big difference in this case is the Bush team did a bad job of covering it up and controlling the prisons and the political operatives have decided that nothing is out of bounds when they play the game of gotcha. During WWII someone trying to expose our tactics during war time, no matter how inhumane they may have been, would have been executed....

[woodchip]

Sleep tight sweetlings, for now our country will be a little less safe.

"Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin
Kilarin

Ummm...just exactly what liberty did you loose with the Patriot act? Have a cell phone listened into if you spoke certain key words? How is that diminishing your liberties? Getting arrested because you hung around or supported the wrong people? How do you think the Cosa Nostra got handled by the feds? Think maybe some liberties were lost there? How about all the people that were black-listed by McCarthy? Where were their liberties? My two examples show how liberties were abused and we were not even at war. Now we have a real threat and you are worried more about some liberty you may never of had in the first place than having a couple of thousand of your fellow citizens die. Spouting off little cliches doesn't win arguments around here. Wake me when some real palatable liberty has been "given up".

[Dedman]

Why don't most young people today know how legislation is really passed...

Because that question isn't on any of the standardized tests?

[Phoenix Red]

Particularly gruesom (or, if you prefer your constitution's wording, cruel and unusual) methods should be more out of bounds, but getting someone to talk can save a lot of lives, civilian or military.

Same excuse used by the Vietnamese. But we were all disgusted when we heard how they treated their prisonsers. "Crimes against humanity" was the term I believe.

The geneva convention was supposed to detail how "civilized" nations should treat prisoners of war. I don't buy that just because the war on terror isn't an ordinary war we should throw out the geneva conventions and start torturing prisoners. This war isn't ABOUT military might. To win this war, we should have taken the moral high ground. Instead of specifically looking for ways to avoid the Geneva Convention, G. W. Bush should have announced right up front on day one of the war in Afghanistan that despite all of the irregularities, we were going to treat all prisoners under that accord. Why? Because WE ARE THE GOOD GUYS. And the good guys don't make excuses to get away with mistreating prisoners.

I wasn't around during the vietnam conflict, but yeah, I am aware that the same things happen to our guys and that it sucks. I am considering a military career, though not as my only option, and if I sign on I will sign on knowing that my job involves potentially being shot, blown up, burned alive, tortured to death, or otherwise killed in a painful fashion. Soldiers get killed and it isn't always pretty. In a war, them's the breaks.

I also don't feel that the geneva convention makes a lot of sense, since you raise the point. You can kill someone with a flamethrower, but not a hollowpoint round (the same kind police use). You can kill someone by sending 200 ballbearings ripping through their abdomen and leave them to bleed to death, but you can't kill them with a gas that is comparatively both quick and humane (comparable to how we deal with unwanted pets). It doesn't add up. The spirit of the agreement not to do particularly nasty things to each-other is good, but the specifics are beyond logic.

[Birdseye]

Anyone here remember "The Wall" as imposed by one Jamie Gorelik? That divide between internal security apparatii such as the FBI and the external such as the CIA? The Patriot Act was to do away with this exclusionary zone and let both agencies share and use assets to keep another 9/11 from happening. So by doing away with the Patriot Act are we now going back to the good 'ole days of yesteryear where terrorist will have the upper hand? I know, it has been such a long time since 9/11 that it is only a dim memory but mark my words. When the next attack comes there will be another commission and the question will arise as to why the Patriot Act was eliminated when everyone darn well knew another attack was waiting to happen. Then watch how the politicians start blaming one another.
Sleep tight sweetlings, for now our country will be a little less safe.

I'm sorry but safety is not an excuse to give up my fundamental liberties as an American.

Yes, I understand points such as the one you have brought up, and I understand their importance. But as long as I have to also give up my fundamental rights as an American, I refuse this trade of liberty for safety.

I would prefer that the bad sections of the Patriot act be removed, and for goddsake change the name to something rational.

[Kilarin]

What makes you so sure we aren't founded on many of the very same tactics used today?

We also had slavery at that time. Doesn't make it right, and doesn't change the fact that our country was founded upon the idea that all men are created equal. Some of the obvious connotations of that belief took longer to sink in than others. Yes, there have been cases where torture happend under the governments eyes. We should be ashamed of them, not holding them up as positive examples for the future. But in general it has been our policy that we treat prisoners decently. It is supposed to be one of the dividing lines between us and them. They cut off prisoners heads and distribute the video. WE are supposed to be better than that.

I think it's naive to think we didn't always use these tactics and that you wouldn't do it too

Call me naive then, because I would like to believe that we have not always felt that the ends justified the means, I hold to the illusion that we were once a nation of high ideals, and I do hope that I could distinguish between right and wrong if I were placed in those circumstances.

just exactly what liberty did you loose with the Patriot act? Have a cell phone listened into if you spoke certain key words? How is that diminishing your liberties?...
Spouting off little cliches doesn't win arguments around here.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I don't consider the bill of rights to be a cliche, nor the quote from Benjamin Franklin. The founding fathers built specific limits into the government for a REASON. They had witnessed, first hand, what happens when a government gets too much power. I think this country is well up to dealing with the threat of al qaeda WITHIN the bounds of our constitution. If we can't do that, then they have already won.

I'm sorry but safety is not an excuse to give up my fundamental liberties as an American.

Amen!

I also don't feel that the geneva convention makes a lot of sense

I'm not certain why they put in a restriction on expanding bullets. Gotta admit, that doesn't make much sense. I always understood that the gas warfare restriction was based on it's uncontrolability. It tends to go where you didn't mean it to.

Kilarin

[edit]I just caught up on the news. Looks like G. W. agreed to support the anti-torture bill. It's ashame it took this long, but I commend him for finaly taking that position.[/edit]

[Pugwash]

The convention in war has always been that a UNIFORMED combatant is treated with due care and the geneva conventions are followed.
Combatants NOT in uniform are SPIES and as such were generally shot on the spot or as soon as the "debriefing" was complete.
Seems to me that the prisoners in question today are quite lucky. Had this been Europe during the 2nd world war (or any previous war)they would all be dead by now.

[woodchip]

So will all the hupla over the garroting of the Patriot Act goes on, we have this:

snip
"Officials are investigating the theft of 400 pounds of high-powered plastic explosives in New Mexico. The material was stolen from a bunker owned by a bomb expert who works at a national research lab outside Albuquerque."

snip
"The missing 400 pounds of explosives includes 150 pounds of what is known as C-4 plastic, or "sheet explosive," which can be shaped and molded and is often used by terrorists and military operatives."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=1421579

I'll let you chemistry majors figure out how big a hole in the ground this 400 pound cache will create.
Again, sleep tight sweetlings.

[Vertigo 99]

i thought that the patriot act was still in place. why didn't it prevent these explosives from being stolen?

[Kilarin]

The convention in war has always been that a UNIFORMED combatant is treated with due care and the geneva conventions are followed.

Which, it seems to me, would apply to the prisoners taken in the initial overthrow of both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Had this been Europe during the 2nd world war (or any previous war)they would all be dead by now.

which, IMHO, would have been much better policy. Not a GOOD policy, mind you, but it would have done less long term damage.

Kilarin

[DCrazy]

woodchip:

1. PATRIOT Act expires 12/31.
2. 400 lbs. of explosives stolen some time ago.

THEREFORE:

3. PATRIOT Act was useless in stopping it.

[Zuruck]

Heh, this incident should show the complete ineffectiveness of the Patriot Act. And Birdseye is right, change the name to what it really is. But this administration is good at that. Clear Skies Initiative, Healthy Forests, Patriot Act, amazing how fun names change the perception of what it really is. Like how the estate tax became the DEATH tax!!

[Birdseye]

woodchip:

1. PATRIOT Act expires 12/31.
2. 400 lbs. of explosives stolen some time ago.

THEREFORE:

3. PATRIOT Act was useless in stopping it.

hahaha, talk about SPANK!

[Will Robinson]

I don't think Woodchip intended to imply that the Patriot Act would stop the theft of the explosives but rather that there are activities taking place that the Patriot Act will be helpfull in gathering information about and facilitating the sharing of information among agencies that might lead to the apprehension of people involved in these activities who otherwise go undetected (see Able Danger for reference).

My take on his post was that he was framing the Patriot Act in the proper big-picture perspective instead of only refering to it as a method of spying on innocents....
So the spanking you think you witnessed was really the result of a narrow, incomplete view of the event...more like an attempt to spank that didn't even require Woodchip to move to avoid contact. More like a whiff.

[fyrephlie]

OR woodchip made his post without comments so that he wouldn't have to worry about people smacking it around too much.

[Kilarin]

I don't think Woodchip intended to imply that the Patriot Act would stop the theft of the explosives

Actually, I'll have to agree with both sides. Obviously the Patriot Act didn't stop the theft, but also the argument from the other side is that now we need to track down those explosives so we should give the executive branch expanded powers to do so.

Are we all frightened about those explosives? Beyond doubt. Would we all like to see the criminals captured? Most certainly. But how far are we willing to expand the governments powers in order to stop them?

It's really all a matter of perspective. The average number of deaths in the US each year from motor vehicle accidents is 41,700. That number completely dwarfs the number of deaths from terrorism, even world wide.

So what freedoms are we willing to give up to curb auto accident fatalities? Quite a few actually. We accept seat belt laws, speed limits, and license plates. But there are also things we are NOT willing to do, even though they would save countless lives. For example, we are NOT willing to file "flight plans" with the highway dept every time we drive our cars. Doing so would let the government reroute around traffic jams, trace criminals, all kinds of nifty things. But it's not worth it. We don't want the government tracking us that closely. We don't want to live in the kind of society where they do, and we know that the government ALWAYS ends up abusing power like that. So we have made the DELIBERATE choice to accept the risks and extra deaths in order to preserve this little freedom.

The government has PLENTY of legal ways to persue the terrorist. Allowing the government to start encroaching upon our liberties MIGHT increase the odds of catching the bad guys by a tiny amount, but it simply isn't worth the risk. I'll keep my liberties and live with some uncertainty. After all, I do that every time I get into my car.

Kilarin

[Lothar]

we are NOT willing to file "flight plans" with the highway dept every time we drive our cars. ... But it's not worth it. We don't want the government tracking us that closely.

My problem with filing "flight plans" for driving isn't that I don't want the government being able to track me that closely... it's that it's a pain in the butt. Too much paperwork, not enough benefit.

If there was a simple way to make traffic efficient, even if it meant the government could track me, I'd be OK with it. If everyone had fancy GPS systems in their cars that also tracked every car within a certain distance (or on the same road), that would help with traffic. It would also give the government an easier way to track people. And I'd be OK with it.

More generally... the government gets more powerful all the time. The mere existance of sattelites means the government has the ability to do things they couldn't do 50 years ago. And I don't mind the fact that the government has those abilities.

What worries me is giving the government powers that are, on balance, negative. IMO, some parts of the PATRIOT Act are like that, while others are not. Some have too little benefit and too much cost, but others are totally legit.

[woodchip]

Well, before you gay S&M types want to erotically swank my hairy heiny, consider this. Perhaps the explosives were "allowed" to be stolen so that they may be tracked to higher ups in the group that may be planning on using them. Possibilty eh? And yes my example was to show that the Patriot Act is neccessary. Alas I expected the intelligence level on this board to be high enough that it was obvious. Looks like I was proven wrong.

The other thing to consider is how effective the PA has been. It will probably be a long time before a Frontline Report will bring all the "saves" into the light of day.

Kilarin
woodchip wrote: ? Select ? ? Expand ?
just exactly what liberty did you loose with the Patriot act? Have a cell phone listened into if you spoke certain key words? How is that diminishing your liberties?...
Spouting off little cliches doesn't win arguments around here.


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Kilarin

Again where have specific instances of abuse of american citizens occured other than to a couple of people who were very suspicious characters? I'm still waiting.

[Kilarin]

More generally... the government gets more powerful all the time.

Yes, but I think it's a trend that we must fight or else we will find our government too big to control. Heck, it's really already there.

Again where have specific instances of abuse of american citizens occured other than to a couple of people who were very suspicious characters? I'm still waiting.

You see, that's the problem. I think that even "suspicious characters" still have rights. Of course, my reasons for this may be selfish, I probably AM a "suspicious character".

But seriously, that IS one of the points of the constitution, we do not deprive people of rights or liberties without due process. Even suspicious characters get due process. Even obviously guilty criminals get due process. Thats why we HAVE warrants and courts. To do away with them MIGHT buy us a little safety now, but in the long run, I'd rather have the freedom.

It confuses me that conservatives are willing to throw away thier rights away like this. This issue is very much like the right to bear arms. Many people (especially on the left) think that if only we would give the government more control over guns, everyone would be safer. Well, it doesn't actually seem to improve safety and we were given the right to bear arms for a REASON. Tiananmen Square can't happen here, the right to bear arms gives us the final veto.

Keeping the government from peeking at what library books you've checked out, or from tapping your phone or reading your email is just as important. They will find a way to abuse that kind of information. The right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure is just as important as the right to bear arms. We must defend ALL of the bill of rights, or all of it will be taken away from us.

Kilarin