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.

[William McKinley]

See also this.

[Viva Le Dissention]

So am I reading this correctly to say that there were four copies of a bill for 435 voting members of the House?

I think that's what it says--and if that's correct, I certainly agree with Ron Paul in his statement that the bill was not available for House members to read prior to a vote.

I don't really know anything about whether the bill was available, but I do know that four goes into 435 about 110 times. One copy per 110 House members? There is no way they could read it, or probably even see it.

[freeeee]

Two copies for 435 Representatives is not remotely sufficient. I have never heard of such a thing happening in any other case. The fact that copies were not made available to every member as they are routinely done in all other cases speaks volumes about the slimy tactics used in Congress that night.

[Protagoras]

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

He didn't read it either. Nor has he ever read a bill he signed or even sponsered in it's entirety. Nor has any other member of congress. That is what staff is for, so the politicion can be about his real business, fund raising and reelection.

[mrsmith]

Well someone who can't tell the difference between 0 and two isn't intelligent enough to waste much time on.

Have a nice befuddled day.

[freeeee]

Constimatooshinalist

Such contempt for our Constitution is shameful. Why do you disrespect it so much? Is it that it gets in your way so often?

[JohnnyZ]

It's not a war. They are criminals, plain and simple.

That is fundamental misunderstanding of the world. Or, ignorance. Just my opinion, but I'm right :)

Perhaps you would like to give a definition of war. Personally, I like: "A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties." Maybe you think we can't be at war with al-Qaida, or their lesser brethren, because they don't fit the political science definition of a nation state. I say, go back to the classroom, because the PoliSci textbooks were having to reevaluate their nation-state-exclusive theories dating from the Treaty of Westphalia in light of the new world of NGOs and international organizations even when I was in college.

[mrsmith]

How long would it have taken to make copies for every single member?

1,000 of the finest copy machines in the world... 5 minutes?

I guess liars have their forgiving gullible fans. Heck, Clinton made a presidency out of such.

But I'm a citizen of a Republic not a sheep.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Well, it's actually four--since there were two copies per side of the aisle, but tell me: have you ever gone to the library to check out a new best-seller? What happens? It ain't there. Someone else has checked it out.

If you really can't understand the concept that 435 people can't all read four copies of the same bill at the same time, you are the truly befuddled one.

If this is a true statement--that there were four copies of the bill for 435 members, then Ron Paul is correct--the bill was not available for the reps to read. It's just simply not possible.

[webstersII]

"Some level of government owns library computers. "

That's correct. But the states owns the libraries, not the Federal Gov't. Same is true of computers on college campuses.

"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. "

These are private businesses and are not owned by any gov't. The decency statutes are state and local laws, not federal laws, so that doesn't make them automatically available at the federal level.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Ron Paul couldn't have seen the bill since, as usual, he had his head entirely up his @$$.

[mrsmith]

True, they seldom if ever actually read the bills.

[freeeee]

How long would it have taken to make copies for every single member?

I'd say just as long as it takes to hold a vote while the Representatives are waiting to make their own copy.

Why weren't copies made available to all members, as is usually the case? Do you really expect me to believe it was some sort of innocent mistake?

[mrsmith]

Ah, I confess I generally like him.

If his supporters weren't such sheep, he probably wouldn't try to pull the stunts like this that drive me up the wall.

[freeeee]

Ron Paul couldn't have seen the bill since, as usual, he had his head entirely up his @$$.

If you have anything of substance to say, please do.

If you're just here to troll, namecall and make personal attacks please take it somewhere else.

[.cnI redruM]

True. In that case, state and local authorities, rather than the Feds, could violate your privacy at will on those machines. It's case of whomever is paying the piper calling the tune.

[michigander]

The PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act of 2003

[Protagoras]

Ron Paul couldn't have seen the bill since, as usual, he had his head entirely up his @$$.

How would you know, that's where you head has been all this time.

[Protagoras]

If you're just here to troll, namecall and make personal attacks please take it somewhere else.

Business as usual.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I said all that I wanted to say. If you don't like it I offer my condolances.