It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Republicans Move To Make Patriot Act Permanent (w/ Video)

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 07:45 PM

"...we should provide more certainty rather than simply revisiting the law year after year given the indefinite threat we face from acts of terrorism, and that looks like decades ahead. We should permanently reauthorize the three expiring provisions.”

Here's the video that goes with the article:

This is extremely alarming and sad. It is indeed a sign that things have gone horribly wrong in the world. If this is to be the 'new normal' for decades to come then I don't see anyone in America standing a chance at ever having anything resembling a decent life. Laws lead to yet more laws as we've seen over years since 9/11. The road ahead looks murkier for America with each passing year.

America can only hope that in the near future,a change of administration and policy can somehow reverse the tide and bring the country back into harmony with not only itself but world at large.
edit on 4-2-2011 by FlyingJadeDragon because: wording.

edit on 4-2-2011 by FlyingJadeDragon because: edit for content

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:07 PM
There must be a way to stop this. I can't believe these sell out republicans. Wow to live in American where spying and wire tapping American citizens is the norm. You know these people can get away with god knows what under the vagueness of this act! AHHH! what are the founders thinking of us right now??

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:30 PM
Final proof that their "smaller government" slogan is nothing but a lie for the gullible.

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:37 PM
Make no mistakes about this, the Patriot Act is not in anyway a partisan bill. It was certainly a bi-partisan bill when it was first passed in 2001, with all but two Senators voting "yea" for its passage. The only Senator to vote against the 2001 Patriot Act was Senator Russ Feingold, who is a democrat, Senator Landrieu of Louisiana, also a Democrat, did not vote at all. However, just because the sole "nay" vote was from a Democrat does not make the Patriot Act a partisan bill by the Republican Party.

Let me be clear here, I do not make this post to defend any party, let alone the Republican Party. I make this post to make clear that its existence is due to across the board support from politicians. Even more importantly, the Patriot Act exists because the American people tolerate it. Part of that tolerance is shown by pretending outrage over the bill while simultaneously ascribing responsibility to a political party for its existence.

In 2001 when the Patriot Act was first passed, there were 98 Senators who voted for it, and 357 Representatives who voted for it. Only 66 Representatives voted against it, and 9 Representatives who didn't vote.

In 2006, regarding the renewal of the Patriot Act, 89 Senators voted for it, and 10 against it, only one did not vote at all. The amount of Representatives voting against the renewal of the Patriot Act in 2006 did rise some, and this time 280 Representatives voted for the renewal, while 138 voted against it, with 14 not voting at all.

If you want to go through the list of who voted for and against both the 2001, and 2006 legislative acts to find out how many were Republicans, and how many were Democrats, this link will facilitate any compunction to do so.

The Patriot Act exists, and I cannot repeat this often enough, because the American People tolerate it.

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:48 PM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Star for you Jean. I find myself at odds with many of your views here but I agree with you. Both the Democrats and Republicans have stood side by side for this bill over the years. In 2009 it was renewed when the Democrats held a filibuster proof majority, Obama signed on it. The bill may have been introduced by Republicans in 2001 but it takes two to tango.

I don't see anybody of real relevance who can stand against this law. The tea parties apparently view this as a lesser issue than many other things, liberals in the same light seem to notch this issue down behind other issues (although the patriot act was the center of the Iraq war protests, it died down over the years) and I don't see any of the new politicians making a difference. Wheres Rand Paul? He appears to be center for the new tea party faction of the Republican party. Why isn't he and his other counterparts like his father challanging this law out in public? Where are the marches? What happened to all those anti-war liberals? Because Obama is in power this is somehow different? I'm a liberal or a progressive or what have you and I see no difference.

I can't rely on either party. Third party is my only option for 2012... it really is. It's just too bad most other folks are thick headed to notice.

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 09:13 PM
thats shocking to say the least. An act that basically voids the constitution is bad enough as an (un)necessary evil, but going ahead and make it permanent

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 09:36 PM
If both parties want to make the Patriot act permanent it surely means that in substance both desire to maintain more government control and secrecy.
Since the US has been under a continuous state of emergency since at least 9/11, our Congress has been a powerless entity as the actual government has been run by the so-called "shadow government" operating within and through the security state apparatus.

All the politicking in Washington is maintained purely for show, to continue the illusion of "government by the people, for the people".
To permanently codify the Patriot Acts is to rubber stamp the shadow government to continue it's rule from behind the curtain.

JPZ is right, this is not a partisan bill at all.
Both parties mean to disenfranchise the American people equally and I might add completely.
The Patriot Acts allow them to do exactly that.

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 09:40 PM
The Patriot Act is just another issue that Americans will complain about again and again. Unfortunately, the opportunity to get rid of it basically disappeared within the first year it was passed. It has been in effect for 9 years.
And as a few other posters have stated, both parties voted for it.

Even if they don't succeed in making it permanent, they will continue to pass it every few years. IMO, passing it for the short term is just the same as permanent. In one way or the other it is here to stay.

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 09:43 PM
Some sort of citizen advocacy group needs to fight this law based on its unconstitutionality. Maybe the ACLU?

Not sure if they have the guts to take this on.

If this was challenged in the Supreme Court, I would think there would be all sorts of Constitutional issues with this law.

Everyone blames GWB for this law, and you thanked him in the USA for the most unconstitutional law in history by reelecting him in 2004, but Obama has just renewed it for the third time in his Presidency.

If it wa made permanent, it would be the end of freedoms as you know them in the USA, all based on the grounds of "keeping you safe from terrorism".

"Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security".

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 09:48 PM
reply to post by babybunnies

On Monday, the Supreme Court upheld a statute – part of the Patriot Act – that outlaws the provision of 'material support' to terror groups. Such support includes assistance that might nudge a group toward nonviolence.

I wouldn't place my money on the Supreme Court.

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:01 PM
reply to post by Asktheanimals

"Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the federal government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency."

- Justice Charles Evans Hughes
(1862-1948) Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court -

My brother, the disenfranchised are those people who have been deprived of some franchise, some legal right, privilege, or immunity. I make this distinction to assert that free people in full possession of their unalienable rights are incapable of being disenfranchised. Trampled upon, their rights denied and disparaged, certainly, but disenfranchised? Never! The disenfranchised are those who had something given to them taken away. A free person who has suffered the indignities of denied and disparaged rights has had nothing taken from him, and his suffering comes from the struggle to enjoy those rights that at all times belong to him.

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:05 PM
reply to post by FlyingJadeDragon

Psychos. That's how we got obama, remember? How can we send them a message?

Just psychos.

posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:33 AM
It isn't often that I have a strong need to replay a song over and over, but this one came up, and I remember it getting me through a certain era~'93 and they took a pretty invasive shot of my EEG that summer.

What I saw a couple of nights ago was a slip up on their part, and I am undecided whether to write of it, yet.

It's good to pull the lyrics up, and admire the singers skills, while simultaneously listening (the band says the lyrics were instantaneously created):

The sky is burnin' I believe my soul's on fire,
You are, I'm learning, the key to my desire.

Waiting for the van to arrive,
The prisoners were lined up outside.
Jumped a wall, hitched a ride,
and now I'm here to say;
Love you, baby, anyway, oh, yeah.

The sky is burnin' I believe my soul is on fire,
You are, I'm learning, the key to my desire.

Ran across the country fields, in all terrain,
they had guns and dogs and everything.
Swam a river try'n to lose my trail,
But they caught me, under the bridge. Oh yeah!

The sky is burnin' I believe my soul's on fire,
You are, I'm learning, the key to my desire.

Oh, yeah.

The sky is burnin' I believe my soul's on fire,
You are, I am learning, the key to my desire.

The judge said, 'this man's a danger to humanity,
We're gonna lock him up and throw away the key'
Now, baby, your love has sent me to jail
But I'd rather die than see you with another man

It's burnin' baby, mm, mm; I believe my souls on fire

I believe my souls on fire,
Working on the railroad, every day
But they can't keep me here
And I'm not gonna stay
I got to get outta this place
I'll see you, baby.

It's burnin', yeah, it's burnin'.
I believe my souls on fire,
Keep on burnin',
Ah, yeah, yeah, ah, oh, oho. Keep on burning

these words, in themselves, seem so stupid, trite..but listen to it. Good bass, beat, drums, guitar, voice.

Even better is to think about this:

the 'patriot' act is just a symptom of the technological sickness now gripping society. Look at, and understand the song's lyrics, while thinking about how they get ya, whenever ya start to move. THEY HAVE DEVICES not to be believed and DO INTEND TO USE THEM. This is a threshold moment. Step through....

The symbolic levels are heart wrenching.
edit on 5-2-2011 by starless and bible black because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics


log in