House approves renewal of Patriot Act

CNN ^ | 7/22/05

[Heebert]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The House voted by a wide margin Thursday night to renew expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act, the collection of antiterrorism measures passed after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

The final vote was 257-171. The bill makes permanent 14 of 16 provisions in the act set to expire next year and extends two others for another 10 years.

Passage came with the specter of terrorism fresh in lawmakers' minds after another round of bombing incidents in London earlier in the day. (Full story)

The Senate is considering its own reauthorization of the Patriot Act, and the differences between the two versions will have to be hashed out in a conference committee in the coming months.

[Heebert]

Be careful! Signing away your rights is relatively easy in comparison to the task of regaining them.

eFormer - News that Moves

[MplsSteve]

I will never blindly trust govt...but in http://www.lifeandliberty.gov, they do a good job of dispelling many ACLU-bred myths about the Patriot Act.

I'm as cognizant of my rights and liberties as anyone and I'm not terribly concerned about it.

[Zeroisanumber]

I (heart) "Sneak and Peek" warrants.

Who needs that superfluous judicial review?

[ElectricStrawberry]

There's still judicial review under ALL circumstances.....AND there's also legislative oversight under ALL circumstances. Yes, even "sneak and peek" warrants are issued by a judge.

[mysterio]

Approved by a judge, who SHALL issue the warrant if the minimum requirements are met. And the minimum requirements don't include probable cause. That's not Constitutional.

Under Clinton, all or most of the Republicans would have voted against this act, and everyone here would be discussing how slick willie would use the "patriot" act powers to persecute conservatives. That was back when we were a little more hesitant about writing the government a blank check. And back before the neocons removed the "smaller, less intrusive government" plank from the platform. Neocons might have brought the Republican party back into power, but they gutted the most important part of Republican ideology.

[Dead Corpse]

Yeah... passing crap like this is a lot easier than doing anything effective. Like unchaining a law abiding citizens Second Amendment Rights.

[FlipWilson]

England has no Patriot Act and things sure haven't worked out for them. I can see what you are saying about being wary of governmental powers, but I think the Left's hysteria over this act is over the top. The Patriot Act is, by and large, an extension of the weapons ALREADY employed by the government, in the war on drugs, to the arena of the war on terrorism. Before the 9/11 comm. i.e. the group assembled to try and blame Bush for 9/11, came out with their stellar reccomendations, the Patriot Act already addressed many of the reccomendations.

It is also interesting to note that in renewing the Act, the House increased Judicial and Congressional review. Hey, besides, we always have the ACLU to watch out for the rights of the terrorists. . uhhh, I mean our rights.

[Dionysius]

I bet my DTABOR* Congresswuss Russ Carnahan voted against it. If he did, he cleared it with Planned Parenthood. They own him.

*Dumber Than A Box Of Rocks

[antiRepublicrat]

The Patriot Act is, by and large, an extension of the weapons ALREADY employed by the government, in the war on drugs, to the arena of the war on terrorism.

Yes, let's take the one thing most responsible for the erosion of the 4th Amendment and make it worse.

[MplsSteve]

My concern is not so much from the caterwauling Left, but from many GOP'ers.

There is a high level of mistrust about the Patriot Act, one that seems to border on "black helicopters" paranoia.

I suspect that if we were to have suffered another 9/11-style attack (and didn't have the Patriot Act), many of those on the Right who are now criticizing the Patriot Act would be screaming "Why the f*** didn't the govt know about this terror plot?!"

[billbears]

Let me get this straight. You're trusting what a government run site says about legislation that the government wants to pass?!? I'm not a tin-foil sort but I also recognize what sort of power this would eventually be in the hands of the government

[WoofDog123]

"England has no Patriot Act and things sure haven't worked out for them. "

Is this sarcasm or subtle irony? England's existing legal controls on their government give them vastly more power to monitor, arrest, surveille, etc their subjects than the US has with patriot act or without. The british are the most monitored people on earth, and they still cannot stop this stuff. If the patriot act were passing in britain, as you imply would be helpful, it would be a tremendous restriction on their current powers. Why would you want to do that, given the pro-Patriot Act tone of your post?

[WoofDog123]

some of us might be saying 'why didn't we exercise s MINIMUM of border control effort?'

The fact Fedgov will not do that despite overwhelming support for it tells you where their priorities are with regard to the entry of undocumented illegals.

[MplsSteve]

Nowhere in my previous post did I disagree with exercising a minimum of border control effort.

I'm in absolute favor of total border control.

[sheltonmac]

I will never blindly trust govt...but in http://www.lifeandliberty.gov, they do a good job of dispelling many ACLU-bred myths about the Patriot Act.

A government website dispelling myths about a bill that expands government power? Sorry, but your trust of government couldn't be any more blind.

[MplsSteve]

No, you're wrong.

I cite this source as being quite believable.

OTOH, your paranoia (of which Imentioned in a later post) quite blinds you to the truth of the Patriot Act.