Senators join forces to roll back parts of Patriot Act.

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

[.cnI redruM]

A bipartisan group of lawmakers and advocacy groups have formed a "Coalition of Conscience" to roll back sections of the Patriot Act they say encroach on civil liberties.

"This is an amazing coalition. Very seldom do these groups and these senators come together," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat.

[.cnI redruM]

I've expected this to happen for some time. I'm glad they got rid of the warrentless searches. However, I quibble at the library computer thing. Some level of government owns library computers.

If you put your information on a public computer, you've used taxpayer funds to process the same. At that point, the government is supposed to monitor the contents of that information. It now has a regulatory responsibility to do so.

The same applies for the computers at a local Kinko's or cyber cafe if they are operated in a locality that carries so-called decency statutes on its books.

If an individual wants an expectation of on-line privacy, that individual needs to own the computer and not put the data on a taxpayer-funded network.

[mrsmith]

At last the Patriot Act is receiving intelligent rational debate.

It only took two years of lies and hyperbole to get to this point. But hey, who's complaining.

[.cnI redruM]

I tend to think they panicked on The Patriot Act. It was passed to soon after 9-11 to really be well thought out.

[freeeee]

It was passed to soon after 9-11 to really be well thought out.

I agree. They couldn't have possibly thought it out, they didn't even know what it contained. There was no copy of the bill available for Congress to read before the vote.

[.cnI redruM]

>>>>There was no copy of the bill available for Congress to read before the vote.

If I were Dennis Hastert, I would quietly pass an addendum to the House Rules to insure this never happened again.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Well, the 4th Amendment is pretty much been judicially eliminated anyway, read down to the only point where it really applies to a dwelling house. Even then, there are so many exceptions to the warrant requirement that it's absurd.

While I don't like the Patriot Act, for the most part it just codifies what was common law for years. Warrants? Who needs 'em? Certainly not the police...

[mmandahl]

Civil liberties?

I keep on hearing that my civil liberties have and are being violated.

I really have not noticed.

Why do these nuts keep on claiming this?

What civil liberties are being violated?

SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME!!!!

[unixfox]

Don't ask any questions and you will be fine. Be a good little serf and life will be grand.

[mrsmith]

This seems to be the bill:

S. 1695

To provide greater oversight over the USA PATRIOT Act.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

October 1, 2003

Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. SUNUNU, and Mr. REID) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

---

A BILL

To provide greater oversight over the USA PATRIOT Act.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act of 2003'.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION AND CLARIFICATION OF PATRIOT SUNSET PROVISION.

The USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-56) is amended by--

(1) striking section 224;

(2) adding at the end of title X the following:

`SEC. 1017. SUNSET.

`(a) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subsection (b), the following sections of this Act and any amendments made by such sections shall cease to have effect on December 31, 2005, and any provision of law amended or modified by such sections shall take effect January 1, 2006, as in effect on the day before the effective date of this Act:

`(1) In title II, all sections other than sections 201, 202, 204, 205, 208, and 221, and the first sentence of section 222.

`(2) In title III, section 358.

`(3) In title IV, sections 411 and 412.

`(4) In title V, sections 505, 507, and 508.

`(5) In title VIII, sections 802 and 806.

`(6) In this title, sections 1003 and 1006.

`(b) EXCEPTION- With respect to any particular foreign intelligence investigation that began before the date on which the provisions referred to in subsection (a) cease to have effect, or with respect to any particular offense or potential offense that began or occurred before the date on which such provisions cease to have effect, such provisions shall continue in effect.'; and

(3) in the table of contents for such Act, by--

(A) striking the item for section 224 and inserting the following:

`Sec. 224. [Stricken, see section 1017].'; and

(B) inserting after the item for section 1016 the following:

`Sec. 1017. Sunset.'.

[William McKinley]

Most of what they are proposing here sounds more than reasonable. Not like half of the hysterical blather that we usually hear about the Patriot Act.

I share the hesitation about repealing the library portions of the act. A big red flag for me is the position the ALA is taking; that group is heavily dominated by communist interests and as such whenever they are for something it is usually a good idea to be against it.

[steve50]

It was passed to soon after 9-11 to really be well thought out.

I agree. They couldn't have possibly thought it out, they didn't even know what it contained. There was no copy of the bill available for Congress to read before the vote.

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.

[Teacher317]

What civil liberties are being violated?

The bar to obtaining a warrantless search was lowered even further with the Patriot Act. (FISA lowered it previously)

Will you only worry once the 4th Amendment is officially and publicly repealed, with a ribbon-cuting ceremony?

[mrsmith]

Sorry, that doesn't seem to be the bill.
S. 1695 just changes the sunset provision to include more items. Apparently, from the article, they have now offered a bill with language to replace those items.

[mrsmith]

I think it was passeed too quickly, but it wasn't from panic but neccessity.

The House originally passed a bill that was more of a "Getting Votes by Protecting Immigrants Act". Wasting their time on typical political pandering to voter groups was a great failure on their part.
The Senate done good that time.

Without the language of the bill to look at, the article sounds like they are addressing concerns I've found to be reasonable about the Act.

[alnick]

Hello? He is asking a question -- a question which you seem to want to silence.

[mrsmith]

"There was no copy of the bill available for Congress to read before the vote. "

Who is still telling you this lie?

[JohnnyZ]

Have you forgotten how it felt that day?
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside going thru a living hell
And you say we shouldn't worry 'bout bin Laden
Have you forgotten?

Catch terrorists on American soil? Hell no, at least not if they're "American citizens"! Let's wait until they kill a couple thousand, or a million, of their "fellow citizens", THEN we can arrest them.

Some people don't realize that we're at war, that the enemy is in America, some claiming American citizenship. They see any attempt to protect America as an attack on civil liberties. I say, if you don't want to protect America, go live in Syria and see how you like that.

[freeeee]

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.

I agree. Clinton's Justice Department tried to get much of it passed, but was denied by conservatives. So Justice Department put their wish list back on the shelf and waited for another opportunity. And they got it.

No doubt more outragous unconstitutional legislation sits on their shelves right now, as they conspire to spring it on an unsuspecting and panicked public should we suffer another attack.

Essentially Jihadists are doing the government's lobbying, putting momentum behind legislation that would never ordinarily pass, funny that.

[Viva Le Dissention]

I have no interest in protecting a government that, while in existence, attempts to infringe upon my freedom and liberty.

It would be a different story if the current administration at least pretended as if it has any interest at all in following the constitution. As far as I'm concerned, they can all go to hell. Flame away.

[mrsmith]

There were copies of the final bill.

Opposing Congressmen say so in the Congressional Record.

This is the "Big Lie" put to work as usual by the people who usually use the "Big Lie".
There has been so much lying about the Patriot Act. Politicians wanting votes and money, groups wanting money and power, media wanting to smear the ones they usually smear- it's been disgusting.