Killing the Patriot Act
Posted by Moonage on 21 Dec 2005 | Tagged as: National Politics
The USA Patriot Act was a key tool the President used in combating domestic terrorism. In the chaotic days following 9/11, the Patriot Act was passed that allowed the government almost unfettered intelligence gathering. Over the next four years, it was watered down some by court rulings, but the message it sent was crucial, that the US was willing to do what it takes to fight terrorism. The original terms of the Patriot Act were set to expire 12/31/2005. Then the following occurred:
- On July 11, 2005, James Sensenbrenner filed a motion to extend the provisions of The Patriot Act a number of years ( to be later determined ).
- December 14, 2005 - passed the House 251-174 and was sent to the Senate.
- December 15, 2005 - The New York Times reports that Bush authorized spying on US citizens.
- December 16, 2005 - The Democrats lead an effort to filibuster the bill. Led primarily by Russell Feingold and Charles Schumer. Schumer and Feingold both cite the New York Times article in leading the opposition to passing the Patriot Act.
- The Patriot Act dies in the Senate.
John McCain seems to reflect my mood regarding gutting The Patriot Act:
Folks, remember these names when you vote:
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Craig (R-ID)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Wyden (D-OR)
* Frist voted against the bill as a procedural move. I don’t think any of the rest needed to do so.
I don’t believe for one second the New York Times article was a coincidence. It was just too convenient for Schumer and Feingold. If anything happens in the next few months, that’s where the blame falls.
I’ll make my point simple, they could have modified the Patriot Act to suit their issues without throwing the baby out with the wash. This is just partisan politics putting my country, specifically my family in peril. And I don’t like it one bit.
- Technorati Patriot Act
9 Comments »
on 22 Dec 2005 at 9:03 am 1.Moonage
said …
UPDATE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051222/ap_on_go_co/patriot_act
The Patriot Act got a second lease on life this morning with a six month extension. We’re going to be having this exact same discussion in June or so.
on 22 Dec 2005 at 1:29 pm 2.Moonage
said …
( This comment is responding to a comment that was removed at the author’s request. Therefore, some of the references make a lot of sense. The content is still the same tho. — Moon )
The problem with your ( similar to Spector’s ) scenario, which mimicks Spector’s, is that the debate has been ongoing since 2002. In order to assume that Spector’s scenario will come to any fruition is to assume that people like Feingold are going to actually learn something that they haven’t figured out in what will be four years. Look at some of the other comments on this topic even here. People are totally unwilling to dig into the matter and see what The Patriot Act actually does. The argument SOME Senators are making, with the media hand in hand, actullay does not even apply to The Patriot Act. They then say most of it’s good for the country. This argument is totally perplexing to me and I’m sure offensive to people like John McCain ( see picture ). Is there any evidence that library books have been searched? Is there any evidence that using roving wiretaps have been used or abused? Is there any evidence that the Bush administration has actually abused The Patriot Act? Is there anything to substantiate Feingold’s claims that killing The Patriot Act will reign in Bush in any shape, form, or fashion? Those questions can not be answered logically because they are not actually attributable to the legislation at hand. Being the case, Feingold, Schumer, Boxer, et al, will have exactly the same gripes this summer as they have now. The wiretaps may or may not continue. Padilla may still be in a federal (military) prison. Those are things these people are saying in regards to The Patriot Act. It is total BS and therefore will not be addressed in the debate over The Patriot Act. So, how can the Republicans appease the Feingolds on those issues by doing ANYTHING to The Patriot Act?
We’re just going to have the same discussion again in six months. And, the rhetoric will be even worse, we’ll be in the middle of the ‘06 Senate races.
on 22 Dec 2005 at 4:47 pm 3.StormWarning
said …
Whether true or not, whether founded by fact or not, there is a public perception of abuse or potential abuse created by certain provisions of the Patriot Act. It is in those areas where debate should occur and where resolution of the issues should occur. Just because the Republican Party currently holds the majority in both Houses of Congress does not automatically mean that a “carte blanche” exists…
Now, given that there were insufficient votes to push the revised Patriot act through the Senate yesterday, wise Senators like Specter (a Republican) chose to take what I see as a common sense approach to the legislative process. The White House and Senator Frist were against any extension at all, and stated their objection to a three month objection. Surprise! In the end, there was a six month extension authorized that will permit sufficient time for the Senators, especially those on the Justice Committee and the Intelligence Committee to better understand the issues/concerns/objections and to explore appropirate solutions. That debate on the Senate and/or House floor(s) will not be “rabble rousing,” it will be fascinating to watch, and it will be our “government in action.”
on 22 Dec 2005 at 5:30 pm 4.StormWarning
said …
Well, the House just threw a major curve ball and passed its own version of the bill, extending the Patriot Act by one month instead of the six passed by the Senate.
This will require that both Houses debate the issues immediately upon return from recess.
Now it will get really interesting.
The House of Representatives has passed its own version of the bill, with a one month extension of the Patriot act, instead of the six months passed by the Senate. Yogi Berra had it right! It ain’t over til its over.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=a3t6npQ66iyE&refer=top_world_news
The U.S. House of Representatives passed a one-month extension of the anti-terror USA Patriot Act, rejecting a six-month measure agreed to last night by the U.S. Senate. The full Senate will meet later today to consider the House legislation.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1433936
House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner threatened Thursday to block passage of legislation renewing the anti-terror Patriot Act, Republican officials disclosed.
The Senate passed a six-month extension Wednesday night, and House approval is required by Dec. 31 to keep in place the enhanced law enforcement powers first enacted in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
Sensenbrenner’s spokesman declined comment…
on 22 Dec 2005 at 9:23 pm 5.Moonage
said …
Yep, that’s a curveball. I was talking to a Congressman I know pretty well and he laughed about the topic when I mentioned it. Shortly afterwards, the curveball was announced. This wasn’t a spontaneous event. The logic I don’t particularly get, but I’m sure it will reveal itself around mid January. Will be fun to watch.
on 22 Dec 2005 at 10:23 pm 6.StormWarning
said …
I think that the point, and I mentioned it to you earlier, is that this effectively gives the Congress two weeks to resolve this issue. Unless they all go back to Washington DC early, they aren’t set to reconvene until Monday, January 23rd. That leaves 2 weeks for Specter’s hearings, for debate in both Houses and then for final floor actions.
If you aren’t clear about this, I certainly am not, and I’d venture that you and I have a better understanding of such matters than most.
Taken from the CT Blog where Cochran posted it:
Here is the statement issued by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner tonight upon passage by the House:
“Eight days ago, a bipartisan majority of the House, including 44 Democrats, voted for the PATRIOT Act conference report. Last night, the Senate ignored the will of the bipartisan majority of the House, a majority of the PATRIOT Act House-Senate conferees, and a clear majority of Senators by failing to consider the PATRIOT Act conference report. Instead, the Senate chose to punt the issue to next year by passing a six-month extension of the PATRIOT Act that contains none of the important civil liberties safeguards carefully negotiated by House and Senate conferees and included in the PATRIOT Act conference report.
“A key reason given for agreeing to last night’s Senate deal was that Senators needed more time to fully debate the conference report. Today, the House addressed this concern by passing an extension of the PATRIOT Act until February 3, 2006. I’m pleased today’s House passage and the Senate’s expected passage later today of this five-week extension will give the Senate enough time to fully debate and consider the conference report.
“I will take Democratic Senators at their word that they do not want the PATRIOT Act to expire, Senator Reid’s boast of ‘killing the PATRIOT Act,’ notwithstanding. I also hope Democratic Senators will evaluate this vital national security issue on its merits, and not view it as a Washington power struggle, as evidenced by Senator Feingold’s comment yesterday, ‘They lost the game of chicken.’ The security of the American people must not be held hostage to the partisan brinksmanship of a minority of obstructionist Senators. It is imperative that the House-passed PATRIOT Act conference report be considered and passed by the Senate in a timely manner to ensure that our Nation’s law enforcement and intelligence communities are provided the tools necessary to detect and defeat terrorist threats.”
on 23 Dec 2005 at 10:40 am 7.StormWarning
said …
I see that I was wrong about the Congress reconvening on January 23rd per your other post about January in Congress.
on 17 Feb 2006 at 10:13 am 8.Moonage Political Webdream
said …
The Patriot Act filibuster fails miserably
Starting in early December 2005, debate began on renewing The Patriot Act. As soon as it began, the Democrats started threatening to filibuster it. Due to this threat, on a last second deal, the Senate extended it to allow more
on 17 Jul 2007 at 2:50 pm 9.Moonage Political Webdream » Blog Archive » The Patriot Act filibuster fails miserably said …
[...] in early December 2005, debate began on renewing The Patriot Act. As soon as it began, the Democrats started threatening to filibuster it. Due to this threat, on a last second deal, the Senate extended it to allow more debate at a later [...]