Patriot Act Extension

• I Wear Pants

  Thank god the first vote on it failed that the people in charge were trying to get by without a debate.
  
  http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/2196-PATRIOT-Act-Extension-Fails-For-Now
  
  Where are the people who were crying about congress using proceedures like this the last two years? Anyone?
  
  It will still probably pass when they vote on it again even though it's one of the shittier pieces of legislation in recent memory.
• stlouiedipalma

  Weren't Tea Party Republicans among those who voted against this? It would seem that the Patriot Act would run contrary to their beliefs about too much government.
• I Wear Pants

  The House failed to extend three key provisions of the Patriot Act on Tuesday night, an unexpected setback for the GOP leadership.
  
  A measure to extend expiring portions of the antiterrorism law won a substantial majority — 277 votes in favor, to 148 against. But that was not enough for passage. The bill required a two-thirds majority to advance, because it came to the floor under special House rules normally used for non-controversial measures.
  
  Twenty-six Republicans voted against the measure, including eight newly minted lawmakers from November’s election. Most Democrats voted against the bill, as well. Five Republicans and four Democrats did not vote.
  
  GOP leaders can bring the bill back up under normal rules later this month. It is likely to pass then with a simple majority. A discussion of the expiring provisions can be found at our prior post here.

  http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/02/08/patriot-act-extension-meets-a-surprise-setback/
  
  211 Republicans voted for this, 26 against and 5 didn't vote.
  66 Democrats voted for this, 127 against and 4 didn't vote.
• dwccrew

  

  One of the worst pieces of legislation in the history of the country. It shits on the Constitution. Its actual name is Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 or more commonly known by the acronym USA P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. This is to manipulate people into believing that you are a patriot if you support this act and that it is good for Americans. Sorry, just more big government to take care of you (this time it is the R's and not the D's).
  
  This act along with Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid (Great Society) are some of the worst pieces of legislation in the last 100 years. May I throw in the Federal Income Tax Act of 1913.
• I Wear Pants

  And by "take care of you" you mean "spy on you".
• dwccrew

  

  They can do whatever they want. The US government makes the rules that they break.
• believer

  

  dwccrew;671153 wrote:They can do whatever they want. The US government makes the rules that they break.

  The U.S. gubmint can also confiscate your labor by mandate and break the promises they make.
• I Wear Pants

  believer;671186 wrote:The U.S. gubmint can also confiscate your labor by mandate and break the promises they make.

  I'm assuming you're talking about either taxes or SS or the health care bill or a bit of all of them.
  
  Also, what's your opinion on the Patriot Act?
• believer

  

  I Wear Pants;671190 wrote:I'm assuming you're talking about either taxes or SS or the health care bill or a bit of all of them.

  correct
  

  I Wear Pants;671190 wrote:Also, what's your opinion on the Patriot Act?

  never agreed with it IMHO it's as unconstitutional as ObamaKare.
• Tobias Fünke

  

  I don't have a problem with it as long as it must be renewed every four years, like it is now. The "founding fathers" (cliche as shit) didn't design the Constitution to fight terrorists, the Patriot Act is needed to to fight 21st-century domestic and foreign threats.
  
  Wake me up when innocent Americans start disappearing left and right.
• I Wear Pants

  Tobias Fünke;671204 wrote:I don't have a problem with it as long as it must be renewed every four years, like it is now. The "founding fathers" (cliche as shit) didn't design the Constitution to fight terrorists, the Patriot Act is needed to to fight 21st-century domestic and foreign threats.
  
  Wake me up when innocent Americans start disappearing left and right.

  How is it needed?
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I've never liked nor wanted this bill, although I can appreciate the thought process behind it. I hope it dies and withers away, never to come back again. I think it's about as worthless as the TSA debacle.
  
  That being said: there's a little niggling worry in the very back of my mind, wondering if in the future the PA could/would prevent any sort of terroristic strike. I don't know, but there are other avenues to prevent that from happening.
• I Wear Pants

  We could prevent a lot of crimes if we restricted or outlawed a lot of things. But that wouldn't make it right. This was and is a shitty bill and needs to die. It's amazing to me how some conservatives (not all but a decent amount) are very adamant that "big government" is horrible when it comes to economic and social issues but then are fine and dandy with us moving closer and closer to an Orwellian "big brother" state as long as it's to prevent terrorism.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I agree with you Pants. :: gasp:: lol!
• CenterBHSFan

  

  But, you know... I also think that people should be able to pick and choose their battles as far as ideology. For example: I consider myself to be a conservative, however I think the gays should have a right to marry.
  In other words, just because one considers themselves to be a conservative or liberal or whatever, doesn't mean that they have to straightline. I think that's a fallacy that needs to be overcome, in order to be bipartisan and more rounded in open discussion.
• redstreak one

  

  Please powers that be let this Bill DIE!
• I Wear Pants

  CenterBHSFan;672073 wrote:But, you know... I also think that people should be able to pick and choose their battles as far as ideology. For example: I consider myself to be a conservative, however I think the gays should have a right to marry.
  In other words, just because one considers themselves to be a conservative or liberal or whatever, doesn't mean that they have to straightline. I think that's a fallacy that needs to be overcome, in order to be bipartisan and more rounded in open discussion.

  I agree with that. But that doesn't mean that we have to be hypocrits. You being conservative and thinking gays should be able to marry isn't hypocritical. Talking about the horrors of big government on economic and social issues and then supporting big government on defense and counter terror issues is.
• O-Trap

  

  dwccrew;671148 wrote:One of the worst pieces of legislation in the history of the country. It shits on the Constitution. Its actual name is Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 or more commonly known by the acronym USA P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. This is to manipulate people into believing that you are a patriot if you support this act and that it is good for Americans. Sorry, just more big government to take care of you (this time it is the R's and not the D's).
  
  This act along with Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid (Great Society) are some of the worst pieces of legislation in the last 100 years. May I throw in the Federal Income Tax Act of 1913.

  I applauded you in my mind.
  

  I Wear Pants;671150 wrote:And by "take care of you" you mean "spy on you".

  They probably think they're genuinely "protecting" us, and maybe they are.
  
  However, last time I checked, the Fed didn't actually have the authority to infringe on my rights against my will, regardless of whether or not they feel like it's for my benefit, for the greater good of the country, or what have you.
  
  They sure seem to ignore that fact though.
  

  believer;671197 wrote:never agreed with it IMHO it's as unconstitutional as ObamaKare.

  It certainly is.
  
  The Federal Government has NO BUSINESS pushing its way past any rights I have and into my life financially, socially, morally, or any other way (beyond the bare bones of taxation for which is most necessary for any Federal Government and national defense to exist).
  

  redstreak one;672075 wrote:Please powers that be let this Bill DIE!

  
  Rarely do I hate something and wish it a quick, painless death.
  
  This would be one of those times.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  I understand what they were trying to do after 9/11, however this was way too much power for the executive branch.
  Some portions of the Act, making it easier to obtain evidence for a potential terrorist, are fine, but the law needs scrapped and totally reorganized.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  I defended this when it was originally passed because I felt -- at that time -- it was needed to get a better handle on where we were at in this war.
  
  I no longer think most of this is needed. The systems should already be in place that can prevent attacks without trampling on the rights of people.
  
  That said, one of the BIG differences between this piece of legislation and the others called worst ever by me and other, including ObamaKare, is that AT LEAST this act is designed to do something the Constitution expressly tells the federal government to do: protect us from our enemies.
  
  I say let this sucker expire and get on with what is really needed to help protect all of us -- secure our borders, especially the southern one.
• dwccrew

  

  believer;671186 wrote:The U.S. gubmint can also confiscate your labor by mandate and break the promises they make.

  They basically have a license to steal.
  

  Tobias Fünke;671204 wrote:I don't have a problem with it as long as it must be renewed every four years, like it is now. The "founding fathers" (cliche as shit) didn't design the Constitution to fight terrorists, the Patriot Act is needed to to fight 21st-century domestic and foreign threats.
  
  Wake me up when innocent Americans start disappearing left and right.

  
  I'm assuming you were in grade school when 9/11 happened? You must be young, the systems to fight terrorists were in place on 9/11/01, they just failed because of inefficiency, neglect and mismanagement. All the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act did is give the federal government more power than necessary. It is not needed.
  

  Writerbuckeye;672133 wrote:
  That said, one of the BIG differences between this piece of legislation and the others called worst ever by me and other, including ObamaKare, is that AT LEAST this act is designed to do something the Constitution expressly tells the federal government to do: protect us from our enemies.
  
  I say let this sucker expire and get on with what is really needed to help protect all of us -- secure our borders, especially the southern one.

  
  It may be designed to do something the Constitution states the federal government should do, but by trampling all over the Constitution. Kind of a Catch-22. I agree with your last statement wholeheartedly.
• majorspark

  

  Temporary extreme acts by the government to protect its citizens in times of a national or state emergency are at times necessary and permissible. But extremely dangerous if they fall into the wrong hands. These types of acts by the government should only occur under the most extreme circumstances. They should occur under official declarations by elected members of the government in the event of extreme national or state strife.
  
  By acts of congress only under a declaration of war, state of emergency, martial law or official suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. The power to declare such states constitutionally falls on congress. The president only has authority to act on congresses declaration. Article 1 section 9 of the US constitution only allows congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Only in the cases of rebellion or national emergency. In article 8 only congress is given the authority to declare war.
  
  The patriot act was approved by congress initially at a time of national emergency. No official declaration of a state of war by congress but permission to use military force against those the executive branch found responsible for the attacks. In the immediate aftermath and uncertainty of 9/11 the patriot act was reasonable. It made sense at the time to infringe on liberties a little bit. The constitution allows it. But only temporarily during a declared state of extra national power. That time is now past. A decade has now past. The provisions in the constitution never intended for us to live under a perpetual state of war, emergency, etc.
  
  Initially I found the patriot act a reasonable response. I had my issues, but since it was said to be limited in its duration and once those posing a danger to our nation were dealt with it would end, I thought ok lets kick their ass and this will not longer be necessary.
  
  Today we now find it a perpetual act of the federal government. Perpetuated by a fear of an enemy they should have years ago soundly defeated. We should have made examples of those nations that would support them (Afghanistan) to the point that any other nation would fear so greatly by allowing rouge elements to operate on their lands they would extinguish those elements on their own becuase they want no trouble with us.
  
  Today the department of homeland security now needs the perpetual fear of nutbags for its very existence. I was against its creation from the start. Most Americans will eventually rue the day it was created. When the outward terrorism threat diminishes they will look inward. They will find a way to exist. There will always be a threat.
• fish82

  

  I Wear Pants;672082 wrote:I agree with that. But that doesn't mean that we have to be hypocrits. You being conservative and thinking gays should be able to marry isn't hypocritical. Talking about the horrors of big government on economic and social issues and then supporting big government on defense and counter terror issues is.

  While I have some problems with the PA, the fact that defense/counter terror is the only item you mention that the government is specifically charged with providing in the constitution does knock some holes in your "hypocrite" argument.
• Footwedge

  People cry "slippery slope" on wayyyy too many things. But this topic definitely falls into the slippery slope category.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Scrap the whole thing.