Senators join forces to roll back parts of Patriot Act.

THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | 16 Oct 03 | By Audrey Hudson

[88keys]

Good points (IMO) as made by others here as well:

Our Congresspeople never actually read any bill themselves...they "orate" and vote based on the summaries given them by their aides. The number of "reading copies" available (which could have been many more) is a moot point.

The Patriot Act has a few new "expanded powers" and provisions that need to be scrutinized and corrected, but 90% of the Act consists of enforcement of already existing law, and provides the same safeguards (i.e., search warrants).

The previous administration, via executive order, put new restrictions in place regarding both "information gathering" (human intelligence agents) and "information sharing" between domestic and overseas agencies; these new restrictions are rescinded by the Patriot Act, which primarily restores the original laws.

The restricted ability to obtain foreign intelligence, the lax policies and lack of any oversight regarding technically legal immigrants, the tacit ignoring if not outright encouragement of illegal immigration, and the prohibiting of any inter-agency or civil-state intelligence communication permitted 19 terrorists to live in the U.S. long enough to learn how to accomplish their mission on 9/11.

There have been no abuses of the existing Patriot Act thus far, but Congress must not fail to correct any loopholes that may be exploited in future.

(Congress writes the laws...see point 1...and not all of them have the welfare of the country at heart in persuading their electorate to a point of view)

Judicial activism (and the related activism of some in Congress in preventing "well-qualified" judicial appointments to receive an up-or-down floor vote) is a much bigger threat to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" than any domestic or international law-enforcement tactics enabled by the Patriot Act; Congress is elected, the President is elected, but judges are appointed for life unless they're impeached, and the current trend is for the judiciary to "make" the law simply by "interpreting" a "living Constitution" and issuing a "ruling".

The A.C.L.U. strongly opposes the Patriot Act. Read elsewhere how they are protecting "American Civil Liberties" (their name-sake) and then decide for yourself whether we need more laws, less laws, what "civil liberties" are, and whether their Union represents you...

My 2 cents, plus 2 cents, etc. etc...hopefully not an unintelligent or irrational set of "discussion points" (LOL!)

One last point...isn't the internet wonderful??!! and it was duly reported in today's newspaper that ex-Gov. Dean "outpaced Bush over the last three months on the Internet, raising $7.5 million to the president's $1.4 million"...never mind the TOTALS!!

[jmc813]

if you have nothing to hide, why worry about the Act?

Zeig Heil!

[jmc813]

More of the "soccer Mom Republican" crowd arrives.

[steve-b]

That there have been no significant attacks on American soil since 9/11 is a testament to the work of the FBI, CIA, et al, aided by the Patriot Act

Do they really let people this ignorant of basic logic wander about in public?

Here, buy some of my tiger repellent. I know that it works, because I haven't encountered a single tiger since I invented it. Only $99.99 a bottle!

[vigilo]

Remember the RICO act? It was supposed to be used to fight organized crime but it has instead been used to silence political speech that counters the political philosophies of the devils in black robes. Remember this phrase...selective inforcement. You must also understand that lawyers and judges DON'T care about truth and justice, they only care about the law. For most of the men and woman sitting on the bench today, truth and justice are alien concepts and just don't have any meaning. That's why Greer has done what he has done, the law says he can, so, even thought a child can see it's wrong, he can't.

[george wythe]

The bill would limit the use of "sneak and peek" search warrants, which allow searches without notifying the target, to situations where a life is at stake, evidence may be destroyed or there is a flight risk.

Roving wiretaps, which allow surveillance of any phone a person is known to use, could only be employed when the suspect is present. Warrants for these wiretaps must also identify the target and location of the wiretap.

To borrow a phrase from Martha Stewart,

This is a good thing

[george wythe]

Somebody had it well thought out. Bills of this size aren't written in a couple weeks. This thing has been a decade in the making, just waiting for an excuse to make it law.

Bingo!

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

More of the "soccer Mom Republican" crowd arrives.

Excuse me - do we know each other? You seem to feel entitled to insult me without any provocation on my part, so I'd like to know how it is that you've concluded I'm a "soccer Mom Republican".

[jmc813]

I'm sorry. I read your post at a bad time, and was a bit harsh. You seem like a nice person and are friends with Cat Crawford, so you can't be all that bad. :-)

Anyhow, you were "bravoing" someone who has great disdain for Constitutionalists. Don't get me wrong, I like Palpatine. He and I have many similar non-political interests and we get along quite well, but I tend to call folks who prefer safety at the expense of the Constitution "soccer moms".

However, he did bring up valid points for discussion, and I should not have jumped on you as I did. Apologies again.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

No problem - thanks.