Patriot Act renewal fails in Senate.

[spencerjrus]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/...act/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate on Friday rejected efforts to renew expiring provisions of the Patriot Act, dealing a major blow to President Bush and the Republican leadership.

Senators on both sides of the aisle argued that some of the act's provisions infringe on civil rights. The bipartisan group proposed a three-month extension to continue debate and amend certain provisions, but the Senate also rejected that proposal Friday.

The Senate needed 60 votes to override a filibuster and end debate, which is called "invoking cloture." Cloture would have brought the Patriot Act to a final vote, allowing the Senate to renew it by a simple majority.

But only 52 senators voted to cut off debate; 47 voted against cloture.

The move lays the groundwork for a high-stakes showdown.

Bush has said he would veto a three-month extension, arguing it would be inadequate. But without an extension, 16 provisions could expire at the end of the year. There's also the possibility the Senate could still manage to bring the Patriot Act to a vote before the December 31 deadline.

The Bush administration had lobbied intensely for making the provisions permanent. Top officials, including Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, had called lawmakers in hopes of swaying them to the administration's position. (Read what Bush has to say)

In a statement after the Senate's vote, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the provisions "are essential to our efforts in the war on terrorism and their loss will damage our ability to prevent terrorist attacks. Our nation cannot afford to let these important counterterrorism tools lapse."

The act, created after the September 11, 2001 attacks, allows the government broad authority to investigate people suspected of involvement in terrorist activities. Controversial measures include those allowing the FBI -- with a court order -- to obtain secret warrants for business, library, medical, and other records, and to get a wiretap on every phone a suspect uses.
Secret authorization?

As the Senate gathered Friday to debate whether the government had abused its authority, a major news story played a critical role.

The New York Times reported Friday that Bush, months after the September 11 attacks, "secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials."

Sources with knowledge of the program told CNN the report is accurate.

The report was "very, very (problematic), if not devastating" to the renewal effort, according to Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, who helped negotiate a compromise with House leaders on extending the provisions.

During Friday's session, senators held up copies of the New York Times report as a sign that the government could not be trusted with all the broad powers laid out in the Patriot Act. (Read about the report)

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said he had been unsure the night before how he would vote. "Today's revelation that the government listened in on thousands of phone conversations without getting a warrant is shocking and has greatly influenced my vote," he said. "Today's revelation makes it very clear that we have to be very careful. Very careful."

Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wisconsin, who voted against the original Patriot Act and led efforts to filibuster the current version, said, "I can't imagine a more shocking example of an abuse of power."

When it comes to discussion of the Patriot Act, Feingold said lawmakers must "come together" to simultaneously give the government the authority it needs "and protect the rights and freedoms of innocent citizens."

"We are a democracy -- let's have checks and balances," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, in an impassioned speech. "Let us have a government of checks and balances."

Republicans who voted against cloture included Sens. Chuck Hagel, John Sununu, Lisa Murkowski, and Larry Craig.

"I urge calm and sensitivity to the fundamental civil liberties of our country," said Craig.

Sununu said the government had provided no "substantive" material to show how proposed changes to some of the provisions could in any way undermine or weaken the government's ability to fight terrorism.
Kyl: 'No Middle Ground'

But Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona argued that the government has not abused its powers and that the Patriot Act should be renewed.

"You either vote yes to reauthorize or no not to reauthorize -- there is no middle ground," he said.

Citing Bush's threat to veto a three-month extension, Kyl added, "If you voted against cloture you are voting to allow the Patriot Act to expire.".

White House spokesman Scott McClellan, during his daily briefing Friday, was asked why the administration would oppose an extension.

"We've expressed our views how we believe the provisions should be permanent," he said. "And I think what's happening now is that some people are playing politics with this legislation."

Bush has called the act "essential to fighting the war on terror and preventing our enemies from striking America again."

Among the staunchest supporters of reauthorizing the provisions was Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who argued that voting against immediate reauthorization "amounts to defeat and retreat at home."

But due to the complexity of Senate rules, Frist ultimately voted against cloture. The vote allows him to try to bring the act up for another vote.

This week, the House of Representatives voted 251-174 to renew the 16 provisions, after striking a compromise that altered some of them.

+1 for Democracy.

[MrWebb78]

democracy doesn't work, star wars proved that.

[BilltheButcher]

Once again pulled from CNN, a completely non-biased source. But I think the idiots on capital hill got this right and didn't renew, I think b4 it got passed in haste and with emotions. However, if we get attacked again, here will be the headline for CNN, "Bush's Failure to Get Patriot Act Renewed Caused Attack" and here is Fox News's Headling, "Dems Roadblock Voting Down Patriot Act Renewal Casues Attack."

Someone wants to kill themselves in order to kill other people in an act of terrorism it will happen.

[Rock]

I like CNN, they show almost all version and let people of all opinion speak up, instead like some Police station like Fox.

[BilltheButcher]

I like CNN, they show almost all version and let people of all opinion speak up, instead like some Police station like Fox.

I think they're both F-d up. I watch CNN b/c it is one station down from ESPN and ESPN2, so I don't have to do a lot of button pushing during commercials.

[Praetorian]

The CNN Europe is not the same CNN the yanks watch.

[SW]

+1 for terrorists.

[Mission]

+1 for terrorists.

Wrong. Just like I don't want the Federal government invading my personal life when it comes to firearms, I don't want them going into my house without a warrant.

To fight terrorism, we should secure our docks, NOT give the government more power.

[Paul Stagg]

How many terrorists have been prosecuted and convicted due to the (unconstitutional) power granted the government by the Patriot act?

0

How many drug dealers?

More than 0.

If the Patriot Act is renewed, the terrorists indeed succeed in removing Liberty from people in the US.

[MixmasterNash]

If the Patriot Act is renewed, the terrorists indeed succeed in removing Liberty from people in the US.

Indeed, one might say they have succeeded at terrorizing America.

A few issues:
(1) The new Patriot Act included specific measures to "fight" crystal meth.
(2) Russ Feingold is the only Senator from either party with credibility on issues of civil liberties.
(3) Does it matter? Bush has been acting in violation of law (the 1978 FISA act) to monitor American citizens. In yet another crazy John Yoo ruling, the executive is simply ignoring whatever laws they want. Thus, the President is effectively a king.
(4) No conservative that supports the Patriot Act has honestly addressed the question: do you want a President Hillary to have these powers?
(5) Most (95+%) of the uncontroversial Patriot Act measures are still in force. Only the obviously ridiculous and reactionary measures passed after 9/11 had sunset provisions and were voted down in the Senate.

[spencerjrus]

How many terrorists have been prosecuted and convicted due to the (unconstitutional) power granted the government by the Patriot act?

0

How many drug dealers?

More than 0.

If the Patriot Act is renewed, the terrorists indeed succeed in removing Liberty from people in the US.

I agree completely, even if there was never another attack on America for 100 years the terrorists would still have succeeded by taking away our civil liberties.


"Those who are willing to sacrifice essential freedom for security deserve neither."

Benjamin Franklin

[Owen]

Law enforcement still needed warrents to conduct investigations under the patriot act, and they had to notify targets of their investigations in a resonable amount of time. It was not the monster that Paul, Mix, and the rest make it out to be.

No offense to Paul and Mix but if you two were lead by the hand point by point through the act and had all your ill-informed fears put to rest, people like you would simply shift your focus to a new front. Attack, attack, attack.....truth be damned, frothing at the mouth, crush, kill, destroy, Bush bad, TV says so.

How many terrorist attacks have we had in this country since 9-11, and how many people have sued due to abuse by the Act? Zero on both counts.

I think your both great guys and love reading your stuff by the way. I truly mean that. Awesome fellows! Wrong, but awesome none the less.

[Paul Stagg]

Why don't you point out what provisions in it are necessary, then point out how they don't violate the Constitution?

Pointing out the lack of terrorist attacks is silly. There haven't been any because no terrorists have tried to attack.

[HahnB]

Law enforcement still needed warrents to conduct investigations under the patriot act, and they had to notify targets of their investigations in a resonable amount of time. It was not the monster that Paul, Mix, and the rest make it out to be.

No offense to Paul and Mix but if you two were lead by the hand point by point through the act and had all your ill-informed fears put to rest, people like you would simply shift your focus to a new front. Attack, attack, attack.....truth be damned, frothing at the mouth, crush, kill, destroy, Bush bad, TV says so.

How many terrorist attacks have we had in this country since 9-11, and how many people have sued due to abuse by the Act? Zero on both counts.

I think your both great guys and love reading your stuff by the way. I truly mean that. Awesome fellows! Wrong, but awesome none the less.

If someone was arrested lets say for drugs, there's no way they would know that the government was listening in, so how could they sue?

[MixmasterNash]

No offense to Paul and Mix but if you two were lead by the hand point by point through the act and had all your ill-informed fears put to rest, people like you would simply shift your focus to a new front. Attack, attack, attack.....truth be damned, frothing at the mouth, crush, kill, destroy, Bush bad, TV says so.

American citizens have been detained for years without trial, the FISA act has been explicitly violated, National Security Letters have been used to bypass warrants, and military is conducting internal espionage against groups like the Quakers.

All fact.

And this is to say nothing of potential violations of Constitutional rights via provisions in the Patriot Act. Most of the questionable activities authorized under the Patriot Act are secret. Relevant FIOA request are routinely rejected on "national security" grounds.

If you support these measures, it is quite clear to me that you wish to allow the government full control over your life. Your privacy, freedom, and life may be taken by the government at any time, for reasons decided in secret and in violation of US law.

[d'Anconia]

I didn't ever get the news that they had been listening in on the conversations of citizens. That definitely is pretty screwy.

[spencerjrus]

I didn't ever get the news that they had been listening in on the conversations of citizens. That definitely is pretty screwy.

The problem was that the Patriot act allowed the extended surveilance to ANYONE deemed a terrorist. And the Patriot act defined a terrorist as anyone who may cause bodily harm or damage of personal property to another(paraphrased, not the exact wording). So basically anyone who could cause damage to another person or thing COULD be deemed a terrorist. It's not that the government did anything outrageous with the power it was given, it's that the government shouldnt have those powers in the first place.

[Pasha]

Gonzalez is a bitch. He should be tried for warcrimes, him and cheney. Bush is innocent cause hes jsut so damn stupid.

Btw nick, It's not a +1 for terrorists, its a +1 for you. Those hicks on capitol hill passed this legislation because they would get all the flack in the blame game if another one happened.

As stated by Mix, you can be detained indeffinitely for years without a single charge. Also you're judged by a military tribunal with no legal counsel. The only people present in the trial is the tribunal and you. I wonder what anybody's chances are without a lawyer. Sounds like this is ripped right out of an orwellian novel.

1 person out of the bush admin. is not a multi millionaire, what has Iraq done for YOU? Instead of invading Iraq, why not Invade Lebanon and smoke out Hezbolla? or Hamas on the Gaza strip? Egypt for Islamic Jihad?

While were on the subject its interesting how so many of those 'hijackers' were on the terror watch list... Or how they almost all were Saudi Arabian... NOT Iraqi. And its not like they were Pakistani-Saudi Arabian, because unlike in America you cant be saudi unless your father is an Arab, and his father. So those guys were really really Saudi Arabian.

But w/e.

[Owen]

I cant argue this with great depth. My point of view was reinforced after a episode of C-span hosted by Brian Lamb. On this episode a woman, former fed prosecutor, was up against a ACLU rep discussing the Patriot Act virtually point by point including Jose Padilla (sp).

She, the former fed prosecutor, convinced me that the Patriot Act was benign to US citizens unless under extreme circumstances. -Terrorisism- Its real you know, and bad guys have been stopped before acting.

However instances like the guy reading how to grow marijuana online, buying seeds online, and growing some in his closet under a 400 watt light, were not the type of things the P. Act was designed to foil. A judge, approached with a request to sneak into that guys home and snoop around, would not allow it. It wouldnt meet the purpose of the P. Act, no matter how much word play one engages in. Also that judge would have to answer to congress.

The P. Act had built in restraints. It was not used 'in the dark'.

This government does not hate you, ok guys?

You know Chris Matthews? Hes on the left, MSNBC host, he said that if Bush manages to install a Democracy in the Middle East, he should be put on Mount Rushmore. Can you imagine? I can see Cindy Sheehan out there tryin to get in the way and stuff ha ha ha. Mix could help her :evillaugh

[SW]

Wrong. Just like I don't want the Federal government invading my personal life when it comes to firearms, I don't want them going into my house without a warrant.

To fight terrorism, we should secure our docks, NOT give the government more power.

Right.
Many criminals have gotten away from police because they didn't have the power to go into their houses and search, or look at phone records etc. Wonder why we don't hear about them not having this problem anymore?

[Garrix]

...
(4) No conservative that supports the Patriot Act has honestly addressed the question: do you want a President Hillary to have these powers? ...

Bahahahah! so true! Seems republicans dont like big intrusive government unless its their big intrusive government

The hyprocrisy is stifling.

[Garrix]

Right.
Many criminals have gotten away from police because they didn't have the power to go into their houses and search, or look at phone records etc. Wonder why we don't hear about them not having this problem anymore?

hey, read the american constitution, bub... theres an important bit the founding fathers put in there about illegal search and seizure.

And just think about this for a moment. The entire government at the time this bit was put in constitution by folks like Thomas Jefferson, Madison, Adams and alike, was much much more fragile than it is today. It was much more likely that people could be plotting to overthrough the young United States government in the 1790s in the privacy of their homes, but the founding fathers decided it'd still be better to protect the rights of people's privacy rather than keep the government in a constant state of paranoia about what might happen if they didnt monitor the people. Point is,the founding fathers were in a much more dangerous position, but they did not choose to invade the privacy of US citizens, they actually made a point to NOT do that by making illegal search and seizure a fundemental concept of the US governent.


If you know the constitution, if you know the philosophy it was based upon, then you have no choice but to condemn the patriot act to some degree or another, otherwise, im afriad, you are either showing a disregard for some element of the constitutional philosophy or you are showing ignorance.

[shootermcgavin7]

hey, read the american constitution, bub... theres an important bit the founding fathers put in there about illegal search and seizure.

And just think about this for a moment. The entire government at the time this bit was put in constitution by folks like Thomas Jefferson, Madison, Adams and alike, was much much more fragile than it is today. It was much more likely that people could be plotting to overthrough the young United States government in the 1790s in the privacy of their homes, but the founding fathers decided it'd still be better to protect the rights of people's privacy rather than keep the government in a constant state of paranoia about what might happen if they didnt monitor the people. Point is,the founding fathers were in a much more dangerous position, but they did not choose to invade the privacy of US citizens, they actually made a point to NOT do that by making illegal search and seizure a fundemental concept of the US governent.


If you know the constitution, if you know the philosophy it was based upon, then you have no choice but to condemn the patriot act to some degree or another, otherwise, im afriad, you are either showing a disregard for some element of the constitutional philosophy or you are showing ignorance.

You mean the philosphy that rich, white, male landowners could be free? Amazing concept by our founding fathers, huh?

If you haven't seen the news media demonstrating that both parties are in this up to their necks, then you're likely someone who unforunately won't vote for a 3rd party in the future.

[SW]

Damn Garrix, you'd be right. Except for this tidbit: Amendment.

The Constitution is as a whole still good, but does need amending once in a while. International terrorism wasn't a big concern back then. Times change.

[Garrix]

You mean the philosphy that rich, white, male landowners could be free? Amazing concept by our founding fathers, huh?

If you haven't seen the news media demonstrating that both parties are in this up to their necks, then you're likely someone who unforunately won't vote for a 3rd party in the future.

Yeah, they werent perfect, you're right- but the fact that they had some ideas wrong does not allow you to dismiss all of their ideas. Nor does an ad-hom attack on the founding fathers deny their philsophy worth, to assume it does is a logical fallacy.

Seriously, i have read jefferson and madison and adams and washington et al, and i doubt they would have problems with modern-day conceptions of civil liberties. In fact, modern day civil liberties wouldnt exist without them. The spirit of the philosphy of civil liberties is the same.

Im also sorry for this tangent, but i feel i should respond in some way.