In another victory for the safety of the citizens of the United States of America, the House extended the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. This move gives the men and women of law enforcement the tools they need to fight the terrorists. I was pleased to see 43 Democrats support the bill, as well as an ex-FBI agent who is now a Representative. America is safer with this bill in place. Americans are willing and able to make small sacrifices for the safety of our great nation. Good to see the lunatic fringe defeated on this issue. They represent a shrinking minority of voters. Why let the terrorists hide behind apologists like the ACLU and the kook fringe liberals? Don't extend them that advantage. Hunt them down using our all available resources. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163219,00.html House OKs Extending Patriot Act Thursday, July 21, 2005 WASHINGTON — The House voted Thursday to extend the USA Patriot Act (search), the nation's main anti-terrorism tool, just hours after televisions in the Capitol beamed images of a new attack in London. As similar legislation worked its way through the Senate, House Republicans generally cast the law as a valuable asset in the war on terror. Most Democrats echoed that support but said they were concerned the law could allow citizens' civil liberties to be infringed. Following more than nine hours of debate, the House approved the measure 257-171. Forty-three Democrats joined 214 Republicans in voting to renew key provisions of Patriot Act that were set to expire at the of year. The bulk of the back-and-forth centered on language making permanent 14 of 16 provisions that had four-year sunset provisions under the original law, which Congress passed overwhelmingly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The bill also proposed 10-year extensions to the two other provisions set to expire on Dec. 31, one allowing roving wiretaps and another allowing searches of library and medical records. They were the focus of most of the controversy as members plowed through the main legislation and 18 amendments. "While the Patriot Act and other anti-terrorism initiatives have helped avert additional attacks on our soil, the threat has not receded," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Rep. John Conyers (search) of Michigan, the top Democrat on the committee, said that while "I support the majority of the 166 provisions of the Patriot Act," the extensions could lessen accountability. "Ten years is not a sunset; 10 years is semi-permanent," he said. The Bush administration hailed the vote. "After measured deliberation and a public debate, the House has again provided the brave men and women of law enforcement with critical tools in their efforts to combat terrorism and protect the American people, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (search) said in a statement. As the House debated the legislation, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved its own extension of the bill, though it included only four-year extensions for the roving wiretap and records search provisions. A competing bill also has been approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee, which would give the FBI expanded powers to subpoena records without the approval of a judge or grand jury. That ensured further Senate talks on the terrorism-fighting measure. The House legislation will also have to be reconciled with whatever emerges from the Senate. The House debate included frequent references to the attacks earlier in the day, two weeks after larger London blasts that killed 56, including four homicide bombers. The roving wiretap provision, Section 206, allows investigators to obtain warrants to intercept a suspect's phone conversations or Internet traffic without limiting it to a specific phone or identifying the suspect. The records provision, Section 215, authorizes federal officials to obtain "tangible items" such as business, library and medical records. Advocates argued that such powers already exist in criminal investigations so they should be expressly continued for terrorism investigations. They also cited safeguards in the bill, such as a requirement that a judge approve the records search. One amendment, passed by a 402-26 vote, requires the FBI director to personally approve any request for library or bookstore records. Another successful amendment sets a 20-year jail term for an attack against a rail or mass-transit vehicle; a 30-year sentence if the vehicle carries nuclear material; and life imprisonment — with the possibility of the death penalty — if anyone is killed in such an attack. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., a former FBI agent, recalled using such tools in gang and child molestation investigations. "All we do in the Patriot Act is say, `Look, if we can go after child molesters sitting in the library and bombers who we need to sneak-and-peek on a warrant, we ought to be able to go after terrorists,"' he said. Critics heralded the bulk of the existing law, but said the sunsets were wisely inserted amid the inflamed passions following the Sept. 11 attacks, and should be retained to assess the long-term impact of the law. "Periodically revisiting the Patriot Act is a good thing," said Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass. "The Patriot Act was an effort to answer the most difficult question a democracy faces: How much freedom are we willing to give up to feel safe?" Democrats were incensed after Republican leaders blocked consideration of an amendment that would have blocked the library searches. The House approved identical language last month in a test vote. "If you don't like it, come up and speak against it," said Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who sponsored the amendment. "But it has passed once and it would likely pass again."
In other news, Drudge is reporting that the city of New York is about to start implementing random bag searches. I think this is a smart, pre-emptive measure. How does the board feel about the officers not being able to racially profile who they search? Is a little old lady from Harlem as likely to have a bomb as a 25-year old male from Yemen? Of course not, so why should the police not be able to use a little common sense here?
The Police, as well as other law enforcement agencies in the country, ALREADY profile, they just don't have it as an "official" policy", so you can be assured of that. I think racial profiling is wrong, but you can profile based on reasonable doubt about someone who raises suspicion, much like the police does all the time with criminal profiling, etc. But to profile because someone has a certain skin color/look is outright racism, and nothing else could describe it. Anyways, right or not, our law enforcement officials do it all the time regardless. It's common practice.
I feel that searching bags for the safety of the passengers on the trains is good. However, if they don't find weapons, but they do find a bag of weed, they should not be able to arrest that person. They should only be looking out for the safety of the people on the train. IMHO.
You have lost it if you think that our freedom is *meaningfully* curtailed by allowing the police to tap into suspects' phone lines or monitor what goes on in public libraries. These are incredibly small sacrifices to make that *dramatically* improve the police's ability to track terrorists. I'm glad a strong majority of our elected representatives agree with this. A time of war is not the time to be SELFISH.
The Ultimate sacrifice would be to declare Marshal Law and suspend all civil liberties in order to achieve security. If a suicide bomber is so determined to blow up a subway or a bus or whatever anywhere in the world, they will do it, and it would only be by the grace of God that their evil plans go awry, like what happened in London earlier today. It didn't work in Israel (a tiny state that makes no apologies for their outright profiling of all Palestinians, and has more military/police per capita than any other state in the world) and it won't work here or anywhere else. Personally, I don't really care anymore about what policies they enact in the name of fighting terrorism, if the American public is more than willing to give up some of their civil liberties hoping it would buy them security, then more power to them. However, people are idiots if they think that somehow the government will give up these police powers once the war is over. The government will get only bigger and acquire more and more powers, it won't give any back.
This War on Terrorism will never end, as evidenced by making 14 of the 16 provisions permanent. I wonder if the cheerleaders will want any of these freedoms back. Way to make lemonade out of lemons, Jorge.
Another victory for the madmen who hate us. Every bit of our freedom that we throw away to fight their evil makes us less of what we were and furthers their agenda. In my opinion. Keep D&D Civil!!
So you are not in favor of the police being able to wiretap a potential terrorist's phone? Let's speak about this stuff on a *practical* level, not an ivory tower theory discussion of insanely improbable what-if and slippery slope scenarios. Can any lib name one Patriot Act power that puts a single meaningful dent into their freedom? Please name one and tell us all why you are willing to allow the terrorists greater flexibility because of your reluctance to make a sacrifice for this nation.
I'll assume you're a part of the "they hate us for our freedoms" crowd. If so, aren't you just allowing them to acheive their supposed goal? To destroy freedom? You would only be proving the point that a free democratic society only works in concept, not practice. Sadly, this is hardly a victory in the war on terror but rather a victory for the bad guys.
Good news on the extension. I'm willing to do my part for the war effort without complaining. Don't forget that the Patriot Act is voted on every couple of years, so it's not permanent.
Texxx, your "I support the troops" bumper sticker is peeling. If you are doing your part, I suggest you redouble your efforts posthaste.
so . . . .when does the big TV with GW on it come in . . . you know. .the one I can never turn off?? Rocket River
Why should we have to give up our rights, what TJ calls a "small sacrifice" largely because the neocon policies of dominating world oil through militaristic strategies, instead of merely purchasing it on the market. As the majority at home and abroad realize, no matter how many rights we give up through their jingoistically named "patirot acts", we cannot make up for the increased risk of terrorism their policies provoke. It is a shame Bush abuses the trust of his loyal followers like Jorge.
