Obama seeks to extend Patriot Act provisions

[Scotteq]

Now, I wonder if the above bold was a mistake or intentional. I'm curious if you're trying to make Republicans look better or if you typoed. Because Russ Feingold was a Democrat. In fact he was one of the most fiscally responsible members of congress and a Democrat that got beaten on the back of the Tea Party that is really just the socially conservative part of the Republican party.

Typo - Russ Feingold is a Democrat.


...and corrected/notated in my earlier post.



Any comments regarding Anarchist's post, which I was responding to?

 

[her209]

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... THIS IS FUCKING CLASSIC!

Boehner blames Democrats for failure of Patriot Act extension...
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_new...boehner-were-not-going-to-be-perfect-everyday

 

[thraashman]

Typo - Russ Feingold is a Democrat.


...and corrected/notated in my earlier post.



Any comments regarding Anarchist's post, which I was responding to?

Nope, I just wasn't sure if it was a mistake or an intentional misrepresentation. Thank you for the correction btw. I personally side with Democrats most of the time but I also highly disagreed with the Patriot act and was disappointed in anyone who voted for it. And as I said, I'm disappointed in President Obama for wanting to extend it.

 

[bamacre]

And as I said, I'm disappointed in President Obama for wanting to extend it.

Just don't be surprised. Obama has been a disaster when it comes to civil liberties.

 

[LumbergTech]

Ok, I'm confused. When the repubs put the patriot act in place, all the dems kicked and screamed to repeal it. Now that it is up for expiration, a dem president supports it, and all the dems kick and scream that the repubs blocked the presidential backed extension of it.

Can someone please make up their damn mind?

hmmm......

where exactly are all these dems kicking and screaming?

 

[LumbergTech]

Good, screw the patriot act.

 

[waggy]

why is anyone surprised? really? did anyone really expect them to let it go? The main job people in government have is to gain more power and to keep what power they have. sure sure they will release some of it if they think it will gain them more in the future.

This shitty act is here to stay. Anyone that thinks otherwise is a naive.

 

[marincounty]

Here are the facts:
The House measure, which was sponsored by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and required a two-thirds majority for passage, failed on a 277-to-148 vote. Twenty-six Republicans voted with 122 Democrats to oppose the measure, while 67 Democrats voted with 210 Republicans to back it. Ten members did not vote.

Those damm nanny-state Democrats, oh wait, far more Democrats were against this than Republicans. So much for Republicans wanting freedom. First chance they get, they're back to their authoritarian ways.

 

[werepossum]

I believe this will come up for a general vote which requires a simple majority. It will sail through.

A power granted is a power given forever, sunset provision or no.

QFT. I don't have any great problems with the Patriot Act, but it needs to either be set aside and a more carefully thought out replacement crafted, or it needs to be gone over in toto by SCOTUS and the unconstitutional parts struck down and replaced where necessary. Note that many if not most of these arguably unconstitutional powers already existed in the war against drugs.

To me abuses in the fight against terrorism aren't so much the concern as the abuses for which these powers will doubtless be used in the future. But even where my own ox may be scratched rather than gored, it's more important that government recognize, and abide by, the Constitution than that government excel at any particular activity. Well, short of protecting the country from actual takeover.

 

[Craig234]

If I understand correctly, two important facts:

- Democrats voted about 2-1 against it, against their own party's President, so if it were up to Democrats, this would not pass even a simple majority vote.

Meanwhile, Republicans voted overwhelmingly for the act, if it were up to them it'd have passed the 2/3 requirement easily.

- This was a special expedited process (the kind Republicans ran against) requiring a 2/3 vote; there's no reason why this is likely not to pass on a normal 50% vote.

While 26 Republicans costing the Republicans the vote this time is embarrassing, it's a very small part of the Republicans in the House unlikely to kill the extension.

 

[xj0hnx]

I'm sure there will be multiple posts with walls of text with various emoticons, screams of "traitor-in-chief" and "criminal cabal," and various other messages decrying this action any minute, right?

Not a chance, as you can see there is already deflection to how members of Congress voted instead of the fact that the Messiah supports the extension ....

Here are the facts:
The House measure, which was sponsored by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and required a two-thirds majority for passage, failed on a 277-to-148 vote. Twenty-six Republicans voted with 122 Democrats to oppose the measure, while 67 Democrats voted with 210 Republicans to back it. Ten members did not vote.

Those damm nanny-state Democrats, oh wait, far more Democrats were against this than Republicans. So much for Republicans wanting freedom. First chance they get, they're back to their authoritarian ways.

If I understand correctly, two important facts:

- Democrats voted about 2-1 against it, against their own party's President, so if it were up to Democrats, this would not pass even a simple majority vote.

Meanwhile, Republicans voted overwhelmingly for the act, if it were up to them it'd have passed the 2/3 requirement easily.

- This was a special expedited process (the kind Republicans ran against) requiring a 2/3 vote; there's no reason why this is likely not to pass on a normal 50% vote.

While 26 Republicans costing the Republicans the vote this time is embarrassing, it's a very small part of the Republicans in the House unlikely to kill the extension.

 

[trenchfoot]

I look at the patriot act the same way lots of folks in this forum look at guns: It's the user who determines whether it is used for good or harm.

Bush and Cheney used it their way, Obama will use it his way. It's a tool. In the wrong hands it can do a lot of damage. In the right hands, it enhances our national security. Take your pick.

 

[BoberFett]

No surprises here. Republicans want to continue the PATRIOT Act. Democrats want to continue it. The White House wants to keep it going.

Meh, more of that same Hope and Change we've been seeing.

 

[werepossum]

I look at the patriot act the same way lots of folks in this forum look at guns: It's the user who determines whether it is used for good or harm.

Bush and Cheney used it their way, Obama will use it his way. It's a tool. In the wrong hands it can do a lot of damage. In the right hands, it enhances our national security. Take your pick.

That's how I look at it also. But Hayabusa Rider's point - that a power given is a power retained forever - is valid. The longer government has a power, the less constrained it feels itself to use that power exactly as intended. A decade after 9/11, it should be possible to craft a replacement completely in line with Constitutional requirements. (I'm assuming here that the many claims of unconstitutional powers are accurate, not making an independent assertion this is so.)

Even more importantly, government needs to be constrained to follow the damned law. Set up what you need up front - and if you need to infringe upon Constitutional protections, make that case to the public and then amend the Constitution - and then follow it to the letter. To me, setting up special expedited procedures for warrants, even after the fact, and then not bothering to follow even these is much worse than extending War on Drugs and/or War on Organized Crime powers to the War on Terror.

 

[trenchfoot]

That's how I look at it also. But Hayabusa Rider's point - that a power given is a power retained forever - is valid. The longer government has a power, the less constrained it feels itself to use that power exactly as intended. A decade after 9/11, it should be possible to craft a replacement completely in line with Constitutional requirements. (I'm assuming here that the many claims of unconstitutional powers are accurate, not making an independent assertion this is so.)

Even more importantly, government needs to be constrained to follow the damned law. Set up what you need up front - and if you need to infringe upon Constitutional protections, make that case to the public and then amend the Constitution - and then follow it to the letter. To me, setting up special expedited procedures for warrants, even after the fact, and then not bothering to follow even these is much worse than extending War on Drugs and/or War on Organized Crime powers to the War on Terror.

Agreed. However, what gets in the way of all of that is the personal/party agenda's that determine how secretive/open this act can become. That depends on how this Act will be used by whomever controls it. For instance, this Act can become a very powerful weapon to advance one political agenda over another, as was alluded to when Bush and Cheney had control of it. As well, it can be used for a myriad of other nefarious and criminal purposes. Given the opportunity in a high stakes situation, the people in control would be very tempted to abuse the powers of this Act, and the fine print language for its use will probably be painted in shades of grey to make legal what should never be.

 

[wuliheron]

I look at the patriot act the same way lots of folks in this forum look at guns: It's the user who determines whether it is used for good or harm.

Bush and Cheney used it their way, Obama will use it his way. It's a tool. In the wrong hands it can do a lot of damage. In the right hands, it enhances our national security. Take your pick.

Unfortunately they aren't the only ones using this particular gun. Every time someone is suspected of terrorism the people holding the triggers on these guns don't go running to the president. Likewise, the constitution can also be considered a weapon designed in part to protect the rights of minorities who need protection from the majority as well as the government.

9/11 was ten years ago and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have gone on longer then any in US history with dubious results. The president now routinely assassinates hundreds of people a year in foreign countries, often against wishes of their governments, with little if any need for accountability. The longer such practices continue without any compelling evidence for their need the more people will question them.

 

[Anarchist420]

I look at the patriot act the same way lots of folks in this forum look at guns: It's the user who determines whether it is used for good or harm.

Bush and Cheney used it their way, Obama will use it his way. It's a tool. In the wrong hands it can do a lot of damage. In the right hands, it enhances our national security. Take your pick.

There is no way the PATRIOT Act enhances our national security. There is no such thing as an "Islamic terrorist".

 

[marincounty]

No surprises here. Republicans want to continue the PATRIOT Act. Democrats want to continue it. The White House wants to keep it going.

Meh, more of that same Hope and Change we've been seeing.

No, you missed it. The facts are the Democrats are heavily against passing the patriot act.
The Republicans are heavily in favor as is the Obama administration.
For so many Democrats to oppose the president on this took some courage. For so many Republicans to side with the president on this issue is a total failure.
Tea party and their "freedom"= failure

 

[Craig234]

That's how I look at it also. But Hayabusa Rider's point - that a power given is a power retained forever - is valid.

No, it's more propaganda to fuel the anti-government agenda and paranoia of the right.

Like any good propaganda, there's some truth to it. Clearly, when government - but the part you leave out, not just government but any organization - is given a power, things tend to 'shift' so that there's an inertia for it to retain it, harder to take it away now that it has it.

But you said 'a power given is retained forever'. Is that true, or it is an exaggeration of the truth to fit your ideology?

Can John Adams' power to imprison critics of the government still be used?

Can FDR's power to run for re-election as President indefinitely still be used?

Can JFK's power to appoint his own brother and campaign manager as the Attorney General still be done?

Can Abraham Lincon's power to suspend Habeus Corpus, to shut down newspapers, still be used?

Can FDR's power to imprison American citizens of Japanese ancestry still be done?

Can the government's power to wipe out millions of inconvenient natives in a genocide, burning villages of men, women and children as one method, still be done?

Can the government still pass laws based on segregation, tell blacks to ride the back of the buss, not to swim in a 'white' pool, which drinking fountain to use?

Can the government still have legal slavery in some states?

Can the government still arrest people and interrogate them without reading them their rights?

Can the government still prevent women from voting? Can state governments still have laws to block blacks from voting?

Can the government still imprison any citizen for speaking against a war, as it imprisoned presidential candidate Eugene Debbs for years over the US in WWI?

These are just a few of the powers government had at some point and now, constitutionally, legally, and/or practically, no longer has.

The statement was false - it was propaganda.

By the way, the last one is a trick question. The answer is yes - it just doesn't exercise the power, but it's still on the books if it wanted to.

A citizen speaking out against a war violates the law.

The Patriot Act DOES have some truth to it about being difficult to remove now that it's enacted, as an act rushed through in the panicky days after 9/11, the authoritarian interests grabbing the chance. But the exaggerated statement that 'the government never has any power removed' is wrong - telling people to oppose ANY new power, basically.

That would have led to opposing the Social Security Act which is the most popular government program ever passed and has huge eliminated elder poverty, to the government protecting food and drug safety, to the government even providing public schools and libraries, and much more - things some crazies might say they're happy not to have, but most Americans are glad to have.

On the other hand, FDR did NOT want the Pentagon he approved to be a permanent building, concerned it would give too much power to the military to pressure Congress for its interests; Truman did NOT want the CIA he created to become a massive COVERT OPERATION organization violating American values, and so on.

 

[gdansk]

And as I said, I'm disappointed in President Obama for wanting to extend it.

I'd never expect those in power to cede the ability to violate individual's rights. Especially after they waited so long for a crisis large enough to "mandate" such violations in the first place. By the way, are you a thrash metal fan?

Craig234, you mention a lot of powers that weren't really powers at all... preventing women from voting wasn't existent. Rather the laws granting men the right to vote did were not interpreted to extend it to women as well. FDR's "power" to run for more than two terms was just a violation of precedent, which has since been constitutionally amended. John Adam and the Federalist's ability to enforce the Alien & Sedition acts were written to expire after their term was up. The segregation laws are actually an interesting example of the state's rights being usurped by the federal government. It certainly was not fair and hence why the federal government intervened. But it doesn't change the fact that a power that was once the states is now the federal governments (the power to discriminate). The government does indeed arrest people without reading their rights, as long as they are considered terrorists. Hell, we assassinate them with a drone without reading them their rights. So, in the end, most of these powers were set up under emergencies, time-limited, or completely not expressed in any document when applied. The fact that these "powers" are no longer used, just means the opposite powers have been usurped from individuals and smaller entities of government.

I, for one, find the continued centralization of government as the root cause of violation of individual rights and privileges. Why else wouldn't a gay couple be able to marry, a man be able to choose what to ingest on their own accord, or a poor man be able to walk across the border and find work? Just to name a few.

 

[Craig234]

Craig234, you mention a lot of powers that weren't really powers at all...

In another thread, I discussed your post showing ignorance, and assisted. Here's number two.

preventing women from voting wasn't existent. Rather the laws granting men the right to vote did were not interpreted to extend it to women as well.

No, the laws preventing women from voting DID exist. It wasn't an issue of 'interpreting them' - and even if it were, it would be a 'power' government had that it gave up, supporting the point I was making - but what ended it wasn't a new 'interpretation' but a constitutonal amendment expanding the right to women.

It's not the best example of a 'government power', though, just one contradicting the claim - in this case, more about men, who gave up the exclusive voting power.

FDR's "power" to run for more than two terms was just a violation of precedent, which has since been constitutionally amended.

No, the President had the power to run indefinitely - whether exercised or not - and the government gave up the power for that long-term President.

John Adam and the Federalist's ability to enforce the Alien & Sedition acts were written to expire after their term was up.

No, the key to the end of these laws was political opposition to them - and governments ever since following that policy, as well as the court's position.

The segregation laws are actually an interesting example of the state's rights being usurped by the federal government. It certainly was not fair and hence why the federal government intervened. But it doesn't change the fact that a power that was once the states is now the federal governments (the power to discriminate).

How you get the federal government REMOVING the power for state and local government to discriminate, and passing laws banning all government including the federal government from discriminating, meaning that's actually the federal giving itself the new right to discriminate - is delusional.

Now, there is one nit-picky issue that Congress has sometimes given itself exemptions from laws it passes for everyone else, but the impact is trivial compared to the law.

The government does indeed arrest people without reading their rights, as long as they are considered terrorists.

Obviously, I was speaking of the criminal jusice system, processing thousands as many times of people. The point stands.

The government giving up the power for people arrested in the criminal justice is not made false by the government not also giving up a power for terrorist suspects.

The fact that these "powers" are no longer used, just means the opposite powers have been usurped from individuals and smaller entities of government.

Huh?

I, for one, find the continued centralization of government as the root cause of violation of individual rights and privileges. Why else wouldn't a gay couple be able to marry, a man be able to choose what to ingest on their own accord, or a poor man be able to walk across the border and find work? Just to name a few.

And predictably you do not stick to the issue I discussed - the accuracy of the claim that the government never gives up any power it obtains - and go on a rant.

But you add examples to my point as well. The government power to ban gays from marrying has been given up more than ever before - with multiple states now allowing gay marriage and a federal court decision that would if upheld ban discrimination in the entire US. And let's not forget, Can the government still ban people from serving in the military for being gay? No.

Some drugs being illegal, whether good or bad policy, doesn't prove that 'the government never gives up any power it obtains'. You are trying to change the subject from that false assertion, to some demand that there be no laws at all. 'Why, the government hasn't give up the power to ban you from killing someone It's tyranny!'

'A poor man be able to walk across the border to work' - again you seem to be trying to argue the claim that the government does not ever give up a power it has obtained is true by showing that it has not given up a power - the power over the borders for immigration in this case. It's a false argument. I only need to show one example to prove it exaggeration as I claimed. You are not proving what you think. And power over immigration is not an unreasonable government power.

But debating immigration policy is not the topic here.

 

[Cheesetogo]

Thank you Anarchist for yet another stinking line of Partisan Fuck~Tardery. We highly appreciate your efforts at editing the truth of the matter in order to post against one of your favorite Strawmen.

snip

{Edit}

I think you missed his point entirely. He's expressing disappointment that the Tea Party has fallen away from it's original ideals so quickly.

Anarchist may have radical and sometimes ridiculous sounding views, but I would never call him a partisan.

 

[gdansk]

In another thread, I discussed your post showing ignorance, and assisted. Here's number two.

Great way to start, I'll just call him an ignorant idiot, cause obviously if he disagrees with me, it must be true. C'est la vie.

No, the laws preventing women from voting DID exist. It wasn't an issue of 'interpreting them' - and even if it were, it would be a 'power' government had that it gave up, supporting the point I was making - but what ended it wasn't a new 'interpretation' but a constitutonal amendment expanding the right to women.

Making a constitutional right saying first black people can vote, and then later women can vote, is really just more of the same (and more recently that 18 year olds can vote). If the power was given up, it would be anyone who considers it worth their time to go vote, could go vote. Is that the system we have? Nope. It is still a government power. This all goes back to what a power is, and you seem to have a much different definition of very small acts.

No, the President had the power to run indefinitely - whether exercised or not - and the government gave up the power for that long-term President.

Look at the 22nd Amendment, it clearly limits the terms of the President. So yes, they did have the "power", but precedent set by George Washington severely limited their ability to do so. I'd like to point out, that the President didn't impose the 22nd Amendment, but rather a constitutional amendment process. So again, competing branches of government imposing their will on each other, is not really "giving up the power". More like usurping.

No, the key to the end of these laws was political opposition to them - and governments ever since following that policy, as well as the court's position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts They provide the full text on Wikisource as well, so if you read a bit more carefully you'll see that they did use expiration dates, or that they are still legal to this very day...

How you get the federal government REMOVING the power for state and local government to discriminate, and passing laws banning all government including the federal government from discriminating, meaning that's actually the federal giving itself the new right to discriminate - is delusional.

My point was the right to discriminate was merely ceded from the states to the federal government, it was not returned to the individuals it pertains to. The right of association, although often misinterpreted as the right to discriminate upon race, is vital to the operation of a voluntary society.

Obviously, I was speaking of the criminal jusice system, processing thousands as many times of people. The point stands. The government giving up the power for people arrested in the criminal justice is not made false by the government not also giving up a power for terrorist suspects.

Are you serious? Are you saying we should treat foreigners suspected of being terrorists as if they are non-human? I don't think it should matter if a person is a citizen or not, treat them as if they had all the same rights, no exceptions.

And predictably you do not stick to the issue I discussed - the accuracy of the claim that the government never gives up any power it obtains - and go on a rant.

I like interstitial rants, if you seek something else, hunt elsewhere.

But you add examples to my point as well. The government power to ban gays from marrying has been given up more than ever before - with multiple states now allowing gay marriage and a federal court decision that would if upheld ban discrimination in the entire US. And let's not forget, Can the government still ban people from serving in the military for being gay? No.

Allowing it is not the same as giving it up, what should be done is equal interpretation under the law. Two people can get married, not just because a law says they can, but because they are two individuals. It still isn't up to the two individuals that this matters to whether they can or not.

Some drugs being illegal, whether good or bad policy, doesn't prove that 'the government never gives up any power it obtains'. You are trying to change the subject from that false assertion, to some demand that there be no laws at all. 'Why, the government hasn't give up the power to ban you from killing someone It's tyranny!'

Excellent reduction. No laws at all would be perfect, of course, individual and private property rights would take its place as applicable "law".

'A poor man be able to walk across the border to work' - again you seem to be trying to argue the claim that the government does not ever give up a power it has obtained is true by showing that it has not given up a power - the power over the borders for immigration in this case. It's a false argument. I only need to show one example to prove it exaggeration as I claimed. You are not proving what you think. And power over immigration is not an unreasonable government power.

It is rare to see the governments give up their control of their borders, generally it is considered a matter of national sovereignty and security. All government power is unreasonable by the very nature that it must be enforced with violence... or at least threats thereof. Since harming people should be a power enforced by the government, why don't they harm every member of the government that harms a person? Because the monopoly of power is what is wrong here, not the powers themselves. Government monopolizes power, this will always lead to arbitrary decisions. These powers should be given to each and every person. Each and every individual should be able to decide, voluntarily, where they belong and how to enforce their beliefs. Imposing your will upon others is no way to run a nation, but it is certainly the only way to run a government.

 

[Scotteq]

I think you missed his point entirely. He's expressing disappointment that the Tea Party has fallen away from it's original ideals so quickly.

Anarchist may have radical and sometimes ridiculous sounding views, but I would never call him a partisan.

I think you give him WAAAAAAAAY too much credit.

 

[xj0hnx]

Great way to start, I'll just call him an ignorant idiot, cause obviously if he disagrees with me, it must be true. C'est la vie.

~snipped for brevity~

I see you've met Craig234, 99% of what he says are lies, the other 1% none cares to remember.

If you say something Craig234 doesn't like he will call you an idiot, completely dismiss what you say out of hand, and then if you lucky proceed to rant and rave about something that is vaguely on topic, if you allow a few degrees of separation. Normally though his rants will have nothing to do with the subject at hand, and are so partisan it would make Rush look like he spends his days working with Air America.