It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: White House Criticizes "Partisan Politics" - Seeks Renewal of Patriot Act

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 04:23 AM
link   
President Bush's Homeland Security Advisor announced the White House's intention to seek congressional reauthorization of the Patriot Act in an address to the American Bar Association in Washington Thursday. Frances Townsend criticized "partisan politics" which he points to as obstructing the implementation of the Act. Portions of the USA Patriot Act will expire at the end of this year if reauthorization fails.
 



www.cnn.com
Frances Townsend told a meeting of the American Bar Association in Washington that although it is important to debate the balance between freedom and security, it is "equally important that we not permit this valuable tool to be caught up in unnecessary rhetoric."

Townsend urged the assembled lawyers to help the country "divorce this from partisan politics."

President Bush and U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have publicly called for Congress to reauthorize the expiring portions. Several members of Congress have already said they want changes made to the law.

Critics point to Section 215 of the act, arguing that it unconstitutionally expands investigators' powers to obtain records to the point where library records could be seized.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Partisanship and "partisan politics" seem to be the issue on everyone's minds and lips these days, nowhere more so than within the United States. The controversy has even spilled over into ATS. Disguised yet deliberate manipulation of community, group and individual opinion is alluded to and the old "divided we fall" flag is pulled out and emphatically waved as a call for solidarity and a focus on the issues free from predisposition.

Ironically, the cry against partisanship and for unity appears to now be an apparatus used to push for enactment of the Patriot Act. What happens when that very cry is taken up and utilized to further the agendas of the very elements that it is designed to constrain and illuminate? Mind games and semantics. Confused yet?

USA Patriot Act (H. R. 3162) - Full Text
Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 (Branded "Patriot Act II") - pdf format

Related News Links:
abcnews.go.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Want to know whats in the Patriot Act 2?
Looks Like (parts of) Patriot Act II is official (Intelligence reform bill)
politics.abovetopsecret.com...
The Patriot Act 2, Immigration and NORTHCOM

[edit on 2005/3/19 by wecomeinpeace]




posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Great tactic, say that everyone who is against the Patriot Act is playing party politics and voicing "unecessary rhetoric". How about the many valid arguments that prove the Patriot Act is actually the most unpatriotic (read unconstitutional) document ever written?

Or are these merely components of agendas that seek to allow terrorists free access to the United States?



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   
I guess I will have to confess that I am against" the patriot hack "and I want my rights the way they have always been dictated by the constitution and not by the administration and partisan groups and men that are against the constitution like Gozales.

I guess I will be tag all of the above.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Is there actually any one who is for the Patriot Act outside of the Bush Administration? Not being facetious im actually interested to know.

It seems that desent is labled as unpatriotic nowadays so a true indication of who is actually for and against the Patriot Act is hard to determine.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 09:34 AM
link   
That's major Bull-dada! If there are folks against the Patriot Act (And I'm one of them) then it simply means that the Patriot Act is lacking in at least one, and probably, a lot more areas where there are no safety nets to prevent loss of personal freedoms for everyone.

I hate to say it, but with the preponderance of laws that we already have on the books in the USofA, it seems likely that there are enough of them to facilitate catching obvious bad guys.

If the Patriot Act is so good, why are so many cities, and towns beginning to declare themselves free zones?



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Partisanship and "partisan politics" seem to be the issue on everyone's minds and lips these days, nowhere more so than within the United States. The controversy has even spilled over into ATS. Disguised yet deliberate manipulation of community, group and individual opinion is alluded to and the old "divided we fall" flag is pulled out and emphatically waved as a call for solidarity and a focus on the issues free from predisposition.

Ironically, the cry against partisanship and for unity appears to now be an apparatus used to push for enactment of the Patriot Act. What happens when that very cry is taken up and utilized to further the agendas of the very elements that it is designed to constrain and illuminate? Mind games and semantics. Confused yet?






REALLY good observations and questions. IMO - that's how it works. These guys grab anything to twist to their own purposes. And they're quick. ...But how do we sift through it all? ...Seems to me we need to focus on the issues, and not get distracted by the games. ...?

.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Claiming that they're puppeteering us into fighting amongst ourselves is a self destructing idea.

What do you do to combat it? Who's side is right? Which side is the construct?

I think the aruging going on here is fine. It gives the best environment for ideas to permeate and crystalise in peoples minds. Trying to say that this arguing and partisanship is working against us is only going to quell our spirit of fighting those that want to enslave us.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 10:39 AM
link   
It is interesting that they feel such a burning need to take yet more of our rights away in the name of security while simultaneously failing to enforce laws against hiring illegal aliens. Apparently we need a “Patriot” Act but we do not need to secure our borders. There is no reason in the world to secure our borders, none, zero, yet we must renew this Unconstitutional act or we will surely perish. Their hypocrisy knows no limits and nothing is too absurd. I will be watching how Sen. Clinton votes on this one. I expect her to be marching in lock step with the GOP as ever.

“Naturally the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the
leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it’s always a
simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a
fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every
country.”--- Hermann Goering, Hitler’s Reich Marshall



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Debate kicks off this week.



news.com.com
If you thought the congressional debate over Terri Schiavo was intense, wait until the one over the Patriot Act begins this week.

Both the Senate and the House of Representatives are kicking off what promises to be a tumultuous series of hearings about whether to renew key sections of the controversial 2001 law. Roughly half of the law is set to expire on Dec. 31.

The law is long and convoluted. But five sections that are set to expire will have the most impact on the technology and telecommunications industries:

• Sec. 202: Computer hacking is a "predicate offense" permitting police to seek certain types of wiretaps.

• Sec. 203: Federal police can share information gleaned from a wiretap or Carnivore-like surveillance device with spy agencies. Previously, there was no explicit authorization for such data sharing.

• Sec. 212: Internet providers and other communications services can divulge information to police more readily. Specifically, customer records and other data may be legally handed over to police in an emergency.

• Sec. 215: Secret court orders can be used to obtain records or "tangible items" from any person or business if the FBI claims a link to terrorism. The unlucky recipient of the secret order is gagged; disclosing its existence is punishable by a prison term. Librarians are especially concerned about this (though the FBI claims it hasn't invoked Sec. 215 so far).

• Sec. 217: Computer service providers may eavesdrop on electronic trespassers legally. Police can be authorized to "listen in" on what's happening on the provider's network.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


[edit on 2005/4/4 by wecomeinpeace]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join