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: Senate passes Patriot Act extension

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 04:30 AM
link   
Patriot Act, which would expire on December 31st, was Yesterday approved a Six-Month Extension.
 



www.dfw.com
"This will allow more time to finally agree on a bill that protects our rights and freedoms while preserving important tools for fighting terrorism," said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who was the only senator to vote against the original Patriot Act in 2001.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he had no choice but to accept a six-month extension in the face of a successful filibuster and the Patriot Act's Dec. 31 expiration date. "I'm not going to let the Patriot Act die," Frist said.

Bush indicated that he would sign the extension. "The work of Congress on the Patriot Act is not finished," Bush said. "The act will expire next summer, but the terrorist threat to America will not expire on that schedule. I look forward to continuing to work with Congress to reauthorize the Patriot Act."

Most of the Patriot Act - which expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers against suspected terrorists, their associates and financiers - was made permanent when Congress overwhelmingly passed it after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington.

Making permanent the rest of the Patriot Act powers, like the roving wiretaps which allow investigators to listen in on any telephone and tap any computer they think a target might use, has been a priority of the Bush administration and Republican lawmakers.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


After the Failure to Extend the Patriot Act on December 15th, when the Senate rejected the effots to renew expiring provisions was a major blow to the president Bush and the Republican party.

But that has changed now. Patriot Act is Extended for a six-month period, which means this "extension ensures that the tools provided to law enforcement in terrorist investigations in the Patriot Act remain in effect while Congress works out the few differences that remain."

These Tools prvided to the Law Enforement include Intelligence Agencies spying on American Citizens and listening to their phone calls and computers without any warrants.

In words of Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas: "Our intelligence and law enforcement officials should not be left wondering, yet again, whether the Congress will manage to agree to reauthorize the tools that protect our nation."

Related News Links:
www.aclu.org
en.wikipedia.org
www.fas.org
www.cnn.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
A Guide to the Patriot Act, Part 1
Patriot act 2
OP/ED: Feeding the White Elephant
www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I'm glad they passed at least this short-term extension. It would have been a shame if the act was allowed to sunset with absolutely no replacement.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Well, we knew it was a possibility. I had hopes that they'd chuck the whole thing and come up with something that wouldn't interfere with the rights of law-abiding citizens while still protecting said citizens from terrorism (that is possible, you know), but I guess that's just too much to ask from this Congress.

I don't know what difference 6 months is going to make. They've had 4 years to come up with something and they haven't...



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Glad I live in Canada



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Well how can they get away without it, when the patriot act not only ensure abuse of power from one side both both sides in the political arena.

Occurs Republicans and Democrats will want it there readily and handy, later on they can only blame each other when things don't go the way they wanted.


apc

posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Please reference how the Patriot Act has resulted in an abuse of power.

While the act does permit the warrantless monitoring of a suspect, without probable cause, the agency must still be able to show that a reasonable man would conclude the suspect is involved in criminal activities. Warrants for wiretaps take time. In that time, Akmed Smith could change locations, disappear with a new identity, or detonate a device in your home town. Which is the greater evil? Risking that the suspect is innocent and their order to IKEA gets monitored? Or waiting for a warrant while they possibly murder millions?

One must understand... most people don't show up on agency radar. Why would they? So most people don't have anything to worry about. The only ones that do are those who can be shown to be associated with, in communications with, or related to a threat.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   
The patriot act is not a define document and do not impose limits as the powers of the government and it does not specify those powers.

That is open to abuse not only at the federal level but also local level.

The Patriot act can be interpreted as it seems fit.


apc

posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 02:39 PM
link   
As I said...

Please reference one incident of abuse.

Betcha cant.

Not saying it can't happen. Not saying it won't happen.

Just saying, it hasn't.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Is plenty of thread that shows examples of it and law sues already because of it.

So it doesn't matter you will never agree with it. so I will not waste my time.


It has been debate to the pulp.

[edit on 22-12-2005 by marg6043]


apc

posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   
If you can't provide references then I agree, you should stop wasting your time.

Atleast it's not the Rave Act, or Amber Alert... now those are truely issues to be concerned about.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 03:09 PM
link   


Please reference how the Patriot Act has resulted in an abuse of power.


Please see this thread.
There are plenty of cases there.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


apc

posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 03:33 PM
link   
I read through the "cases" in the opening post.

A. Unreliable sources (prisonplanet and infowars? come on.)

B. Biased

C. So far, none of the actions taken seem unreasonable or out of line. A 12 year old boy researching a bridge? Strike enough keys and a computer matches you with a profile. Then comes the knock on the door. Perfectly normal, reasonable, and legal.

Previously, lawsuits were mentioned. People sue the government all the time. Usually, the plantiff loses. I'd like to see a lawsuit with regards to the Patriot Act where the plantiff won. Something with real court documents would be nice. Not this liberalist fear mongering garbage.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 03:52 PM
link   


I'd like to see a lawsuit with regards to the Patriot Act where the plantiff won.


Somehow I think if I showed you that you'd make an excuse for it not being valid, too, and ask for something else.


Believe whatever you like. Denying the facts right in front of your face and attacking the sources (which aren't all prison planet and infowars, btw) just means to me that you will believe your fantasy regardless what proof is presented to you.


apc

posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   
I asked for references. What was given was easily discredited crap.

I've stated what would convince me that there have been clear and definite abuses of the Patriot Act.

A lawsuit which was upheld by the courts and ruled against the act, would clearly be indisputable, except if overruled on appeal.

I'm not making excuses. I'm just saying... lets see something real. Not just a bunch of people whining like they have been since long before the DHS was conceived.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   
People need to seriously get over the use of the cliche' "abuse of power". Anything and everything associated to or coming from the government can and is easily labeled an "abuse of power." When are people simply going to realize that with anything in life, there is the inherent chance or opportunity for an "abuse of power"? "Abuse of power" can range from manipulation, rent-seeking, extortion, harrassment, gross violations of basic human rights, to corruption, etc., etc.
Hell, to be quite frank and honest, the issue of "abuse of power" is something that will be with mankind till the end of its existence.

Can "abuse of power" be prevented?

I am sure that there are some here that think it can, in some far off utopian world maybe, but if one bases the cliche' "abuse of power" in a historical and political contexts, hell no can it prevented, despite having a 'checks and balance' system in place.

In relation to this topic, the Patriot Act is a tool for thwarting and combating terrorism within a defined space, area, and/or region. As such, when the cliche' of "abuse of power" is introduced, yes, even the Patriot Act is open to having such occur. The Patriot Act was not designed/created for the express purpose of abusing power, it was created for the greater good. Inherently, with anything and everything associated with life, again, there is always the chance of an "abuse of power," and despite the 'good' intentions of the Patriot Act, yes, there is the inherent chance of an "abuse of power".

I tend to look at this issue of the Patriot Act and the issue of "abuse of power" as a scale, where it is hoped, as with anything, that the wrongs and rights are balanced out in the end. The Blind Lady of Justice comes to mind here.

At any rate, an "abuse of power" occurs everytime I go to the DMV and have to deal with that harassing and threatening lady behind the counter over my Mustang Cobra....






seekerof

[edit on 22-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   

As I said...

Please reference one incident of abuse.

Betcha cant.

Not saying it can't happen. Not saying it won't happen.

Just saying, it hasn't.



I take it from this that you're opposed to the Patriot Act because you consider it to be unnecessary. Is that right?

Either that or your original argument is specious...


You've argued here quite succinctly that what can happen and what potentially will happen are immaterial, and that all that matters is what has happened.

But if you believe that to be true, then logically you must consider the Patriot Act to be unnecessary, since the stated purpose of the Patriot Act is to grant intelligence and police agencies tools to be used to attempt to prevent terrorist attacks. It's explicitly designed to deal with what can happen and what potentially will happen, not with what has happened.

So, since you've made it quite clear that you believe that what can happen and what potentially will happen are not significant, and all that matters is what has happened, then logically you must consider the Patriot Act to be unnecessary.

If, on the other hand, you believe that what can happen and what potentially will happen ARE significant, then your assertion regarding potential abuses of the Patriot Act is specious.

So which is it?




[edit on 22-12-2005 by Bob LaoTse]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Those who choose to state that research and proof are a waste of time are bound to be branded in the end for the rhetoric of un-ending ignorance when it counts.

Thank god snese leaped into the mind of these career politicians and realized that this keeps us safe, until a better document can be submitted.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Can "abuse of power" be prevented?


Actually, it can potentially be prevented quite easily. The first part of the process is to grant the government only the bare minimum of power it needs in order to fulfill its duties. And lo and behold, that's exactly what the Constitution did-- it was nothing more than a simple and straightforward description of the various offices of the various branches of the federal government, the qualifications to hold those offices, the manner in which those offices were to be filled, and the very specific powers that were to be granted to those who held those offices.

Ah, but the second part of the process is the tricky part-- the people must constantly be vigilant for attempts by the government to claim more power than it has been granted. Those who covet high office generally do so at least in large part because they enjoy accumulating and wielding power, and they will certainly try to accumulate just as much of it as they possibly can. If there's any way that they can manipulate the system to give themselves more power, they will do it. And that's exactly what has happened and is happening in the US. Those in power have twisted and manipulated the intent of the Constitution so that, at this point, most people don't even understand its true significance, and, more importantly, those in power can claim more and greater powers-- powers that were NOT granted to them by the Constitution.

If and when a government claims powers that it has not been granted and uses those powers NOT to serve the people of the nation, but to serve their own self-interest, it's in large part because of the active, if unintended, support of people who, misled or compromised or distracted, shrugged their shoulders and just sort of hoped that it would all sort of work itself out in the end.


"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them."
--Frederick Douglass



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
Actually, it can potentially be prevented quite easily. The first part of the process is to grant the government only the bare minimum of power it needs in order to fulfill its duties. And lo and behold, that's exactly what the Constitution did...

Umm no, and not going to happen.
If the Founding Fathers had maintained the Articles of Confederation where the power rested with the states and not the national government, maybe. But then "abuse of power" would be a state thing instead of now being a national government thing. The US did not maintain the Articles of Confederation and replaced it with the Constitution, granting the national government more power and power over the states.





Ah, but the second part of the process is the tricky part-- the people must constantly be vigilant for attempts by the government to claim more power than it has been granted. Those who covet high office generally do so at least in large part because they enjoy accumulating and wielding power, and they will certainly try to accumulate just as much of it as they possibly can. If there's any way that they can manipulate the system to give themselves more power, they will do it.


I do believe that I mentioned that "abuse of power" can come in the form of manipulation? Be it national government, be it state government, be it local government, be it the individual, "abuse of power" is inherent and in most cases, is very difficult to prevented, no matter the situation, circumstances, no matter the method of checks and balances. "Abuse of power" is simply an inherent reality of life. To me, this is then when intent and purpose comes into play.





seekerof



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Yes, the Constitution granted the federal government more power than the Articles of Confederation did. However, the federal government has still claimed more power than the Constitution granted it, and continues to expand its power, in direct defiance of the Constitution. And it has done so, in large part, because too many people, for whatever reason, are content to stand by and let it.

The only thing that's a greater threat to liberty than an abusive and power-drunk government are the people that defend that government's abuses. No tyranny ever comes to power without the active, if misguided, support of many among the people.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join