Contact Info: Four Republicans Who Voted Against the Patriot Act

The Associated Press via Yahoo News ^ | December 16, 2005

[Wuli]

"Amen to that--just wait until Hillary gets control of the reigns @ the White House & uses the Patriot Act against us! That is a scary thought."

Why is that a scary thought? Can you explain, based on legal knowledge and reading of the Patriot Act itself, and not some pundit's talking points?

You are opposed to us being able to get one wiretap warrant that applies to any phone a terrorism suspect can use, and not just one of his/her phones?

You are oppposed to computer communications being included in electronic transmissions that investigators can get access to, when those transmissions are related to a terrorism suspect they have obtained warrants to investigate?

You are opposed to the sharing of grand jury information that involves foreign intelligence or counterintelligence with federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense or national security officials?

You oppose foreign intelligence or counterintelligence officers sharing foreign intelligence information obtained as part of a criminal investigation with law enforcement?

You oppose an increased amount of time that federal officials may watch people they suspect are spies or terrorists, on properly obtained warrants?

You oppose the seizure of voicemail messages under a warrant in a terrorism investigation?

You oppose court authorized warrants for Internet service providers and other electronic communication and remote computing service providers to hand over records and e-mails to federal officials in emergency situations, given the courts attestation as to the nature of the emergency (terrorist XYZ just told us a nuke is coming in at....!!!)?

You oppose federal officials obtaining "tangible items" like business records, including those from libraries and bookstores, for foreign intelligence and international terrorism investigations, just as they had previously been allowed to do in organized crime and inter-state fraud investigations?

You oppose intercepting the wire or electronic communication of a computer hacker or intruder in certain circumstances in terrorism investigations?

You oppose federal officials being able to wiretap or watch suspects if foreign intelligence gathering is a "significant purpose" for seeking a Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act order? The pre-Patriot Act standard said officials could ask for the surveillance only if it was "the" sole or main purpose.

You oppose approval of nationwide service of search warrants for electronic evidence in terrorism cases?

Why do you oppose each of these provisions. Do you understand the legal and judicial checks that are required in each of them?

[Wuli]

He needs to add it to the defense appropriations bill that the McPain amendment was added to and let the opponents deny January 1 funding for the troops.

[GrandEagle]

So are you willing to turn America into a police state...
Wasting your breath. The Sheeple are not listening.
If it had been a Democrat led congress who passed and supported this monster, most everyone here would be complaining about this "act".
I have already expressed my thanks to these four. It had to be difficult to do what is right.

Cordially,
GE

[Wuli]

What is it that you think we can defend ourselves with, if we are not able to find what the terrorists are doing before they do it, and how do you plan on obtaining information on the terrorists without many of the provisions of the Patriot Act?

Please explain, from a point of knowledge and not supposition, about what the law denied before and now permits.

[libertyman]

Just because certain "prior approved methods" have been done for decades doesn't mean they are constitutional either. For example, Roe v. Wade is now "settled law", but that doesn't mean it's constitutional.

The Constitution is VERY specific on the crimes that the federal government can punish: treason, bribery, counterfeitting, offending the laws of nations (which includes dishonoring the flag of truce, mistreating prisoners of war, etc.), denying people the right to vote based on race (15th Amendment) or sex (19th Amendment, if I remember correctly), & possibly a few others.

But the fact is that these crimes are LISTED in the Constitution...we can't make them up as we go along just because we think it's the right thing to do or because our "safety" would be threatened if we don't use them, & we can't add to the # of crimes w/o a constitutional amendment. Unril an Amendment is added to the Constitution, it is an issue that is left for the states to deal w/ (10th Amendment).

[Wonder Warthog]

"These people are a disgrace."

I thank'em. The so-called "Patriot Act" is an incredibly dangerous piece of work, and NO PART of it should EVER be made permanent US law. ALL PARTS should ONLY be renewable on a time-limited basis, preferably by a requirement for a two-thirds majority.

[highball]

If this were Bill Clinton and the democrats that were pushing for the bill these same people would be raging from the rooftops in opposition.

That's an excellent point, and one that bears repeating.

Too often, we're willing to accept a bigger government just because it's an (R) feeding it.

[GhostofWCooper]

Borg collective"
;)
I'm glad the vote turned out this way. It should never have been passed in the first place. Congressmen should be required to read the crap they're voting on, a few minutes after carefully reviewing the BOR.

[Wuli]

"Or in this case, take advantage of an externally-produced scare."

Are you saying Al Queda and it's friends are (1)a myth, (2)did not produce 9/11 and all the other terrorist attacks on us in 1990s, (3)are not seeking to penetrate our domestic defenses now and (4) not hoping to make new 9/11 style attacks here?

And what is that we could do before, to track this "myth", that we do not need the Patriot Act to do?

[wolfcreek]

What is your suggestion for an alternative to the PA? There are defiantly things in there that need to be addressed.

[madconservative]

I agree with you. The Patriot act is not Constitutional. I sympathize with its creators, in that America is facing a serious threat that has to be dealt with, but I have to err on the side of Ben Franklin, who said

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The problem is that the American public does not have a realistic view of the war we are in against Islamic Extremism. They want safety, but lack the fortitude to wage true warfare on those who would kill us. So they try feebly to trade basic liberties and privacy to make up the difference for porous borders, and squeamish anti-bloodshed-at-all-costs press.

From such crises the Leviathan of Government does grow. Which brings me to another favorite:

"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force, like fire: a dangerous servant and a terrible master".
-George Washington

[57chevypreterist]

"We have more to fear from terrorism than we do from this Patriot Act," Frist warned.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Benjamin Franklin

Hmmm...

[WhiteGuy]

These people are a disgrace.


Perhaps they considered provisions within the bill to be "extra-constitutional"...............


instead of partisan?

[John Filson]

Why aren't you more worried about the true threat to our national security posed by our immigration policy? The PA does nothing to address these. You're looking for security where there clearly isn't a shred. When it's our turn on the right to question the American government in power, how would you like the PA used against you? Or do you never anticipate that happening?

[Wuli]

What you Patriot Act opponents always speak from are talking points, and not the substance of the act itself. It is not knowledge-based, but myth-based as to what the act changed, compared to investigative and intelligence abilities before the act.

You have no privacy or rights if you are dead.

[madconservative]

"even though there have been no attacks on American soil in more than 4 years"

post hoc ergo propter hoc?

[Wuli]

Can you explain what is in this "monster", and compare it to what the law provided before? Can you explain just what "privacy rights" are different, under the Patriot Act, and for whom?

I expect not. I expect all you know are suppositions and talking points from the media and the pundits and not legal experts.

[cynicom]

With the stroke of a pen, FDR put hundreds of thousands of Americans in internment camps and AMERICANS said nothing. Whether it was warranted or not is not the question, rather the fact that it was done should have been a lesson for Americans.

With this fraudulent misnamed "Patriot" Act American people are signing on before the fact and that is very dangerous.

The word "Patriot" is not being used for no reason at all.

[libertyman]

Oh yeah, I agree w/ you, GrandEagle....this was a Republican power grab, we we all know that Republicans would NEVER do such a thing if it wasn't in our best interests, [GAG!] right?

But if a DIM Ptrsident & Congress had done this, all hell would be breaking loose here by these GOP lackeys. Even as I write this, I am listening to Judge Andrew Napolitano compare compare President Bush's illegal use of search warrants wo approval by court order to Nixon's use of the FBI against Vietnam War protestors....an excellent comparison.

[cynicom]

I admit to never having subscribed to the cry of the "better Red than Dead crowd".