Senate Rejects Patriot Act
Myrmidonisia
16-12-2005, 18:59
Now, maybe we can figure out the right way to do this. And I'm going to send Larry Craig some money. He isn't my Senator, but he sure represents me better than either of the Republican goofs from Georgia.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051216/ap_on_go_co/patriot_act
By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer 8 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Senate on Friday rejected attempts to reauthorize several provisions of the USA Patriot Act as infringing too much on Americans' privacy and liberty, dealing a huge defeat to the Bush administration and Republican leaders.
In a crucial vote early Friday, the bill's Senate supporters were not able to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a threatened filibuster by Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and their allies. The final vote was 52-47.
DrunkenDove
16-12-2005, 19:02
Now, maybe we can figure out the right way to do this. And I'm going to send Larry Craig some money. He isn't my Senator, but he sure represents me better than either of the Republican goofs from Georgia.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051216/ap_on_go_co/patriot_act
Good. Hopefully now they can look at disbanding some of the worst excesses of the War on Drugs as well.
Myrmidonisia
16-12-2005, 19:06
Good. Hopefully now they can look at disbanding some of the worst excesses of the War on Drugs as well.
Fat chance. I don't know why that doesn't raise as much ire as the PA, but it should. Unlawful siezure of private property started with the war on drugs. Kelo just made it easier for goverments to do it on a large scale. And the number of people who are sent to jail for drug violations is just amazing.
Best news I've heard all day. Now let's hope that it's more than partisan chest-thumping, and there's actually some good that comes out of this.
Frangland
16-12-2005, 19:14
...and that it doesn't prevent law enforcement from protecting us/rooting out terrorists.
Myrmidonisia
16-12-2005, 19:22
...and that it doesn't prevent law enforcement from protecting us/rooting out terrorists.
I don't know that secret warrants is really the way to help law enforcement. It's unfortunate that there was no thought put into this renewal to work around the bad provisions.
Deep Kimchi
16-12-2005, 19:23
I don't know that secret warrants is really the way to help law enforcement. It's unfortunate that there was no thought put into this renewal to work around the bad provisions.
Who needs a warrant when you can just write an executive order?
Muravyets
16-12-2005, 19:33
...and that it doesn't prevent law enforcement from protecting us/rooting out terrorists.
I don't know about where you live, but in NYC, the cops did a pretty damned good job of protecting and rooting out for decades before the Patriot Act, and if the general population of government bureaucrats hadn't had their thumbs up their asses and decided their turf wars were more important than actual intelligence, we may never have felt a need for something as unnecessary and dumbass as the Patriot Act in the first place, because at least some of the 9/11 hijackers were already on terrorist watchlists that nobody bothered to do anything with. From everything I've heard and seen so far, they're not doing any better under the Patriot Act. The PA was never necessary, imo, but even if you could argue otherwise, it's no damned use if it's not being used. I say dump the filthy thing, go back to the orginal systems with the additions of interagency cooperation and proper funding, and try actually using them this time.
Muravyets
16-12-2005, 19:35
Who needs a warrant when you can just write an executive order?
A president. No matter how many Georges they rack up in a row, they're never going to morph into kings.
Deep Kimchi
16-12-2005, 19:37
A president. No matter how many Georges they rack up in a row, they're never going to morph into kings.
Keep telling yourself that.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20051215-22231400-bc-us-surveillance.xml
WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 (UPI) -- U.S. President George Bush reportedly eased rules against spying on Americans shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The New York Times quotes government sources as saying a presidential order signed in 2002 allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity -- without court-approved warrants. Perhaps thousands of international telephone calls and e-mails were monitored, the Times said.