House approves renewal of Patriot Act
 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/...act/index.html

Critics voice concern over civil liberties

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The House voted by a wide margin Thursday night to renew expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act, the collection of antiterrorism measures passed after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

The final vote was 257-171. The bill makes permanent 14 of 16 provisions in the act set to expire next year and extends two others for another 10 years.

Passage came with the specter of terrorism fresh in lawmakers' minds after another round of bombing incidents in London earlier in the day.

The Senate is considering its own reauthorization of the Patriot Act, and the differences between the two versions will have to be hashed out in a conference committee in the coming months.

President Bush issued a statement commending the House on the vote, calling the Patriot Act "a key part of our efforts to combat terrorism and protect the American people."

"The Congress needs to send me a bill soon that renews the act without weakening our ability to fight terror," Bush said.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales -- whose Justice Department gained significant investigative and surveillance powers under the act -- said in a statement that "the House has again provided the brave men and women of law enforcement with critical tools in their efforts to combat terrorism and protect the American people."

But Lisa Graves, a senior counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, called the bill "flawed" and criticized GOP leaders for limiting amendments to the measure that would have addressed civil liberties concerns.

"History shows that the willingness to curtail America's freedoms during national challenges ultimately leads to regrets about betraying our fundamental values," she said in a statement.

Parts of the Patriot Act have come under fire from civil liberties advocates -- as well as some lawmakers on both the left and right of the political spectrum -- who say they provide law enforcement with sweeping powers that could be abused.

However, Bush and GOP leaders have pushed for renewal, insisting the act has been used judiciously and contains key tools needed to fight the war on terror.

In the final tally, 14 Republicans bucked Bush and the party leadership to vote against the Patriot Act renewal. Among Democrats, 43 supported it, while 156 voted no.

However, a number of top Democrats supported the bill, including five members of the party's House leadership -- Steny Hoyer, the minority whip; Robert Menendez and Jim Clyburn, the chairman and vice chairman of the Democratic caucus; John Spratt, assistant minority leader; and Rahm Emanuel, who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The ranking Democrats on the Intelligence and Armed Services committees -- Reps. Jane Harman and Ike Skelton -- also voted yes.

The final vote concluded a marathon House session that stretched late into the night, during which representatives considered numerous amendments to the Patriot Act renewal.

Lawmakers narrowly turned back an effort by Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Virginia, to renew the expiring Patriot Act provisions for four more years, rather than making them permanent -- an amendment that drew spirited support from archconservative Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-California.

Rohrabacher said he supported the Patriot Act in 2001 because of the threat faced by the country after 9/11, but only under the belief that once the emergency was over, "the government would again return to a level consistent with a free society."

"We should not be required to live in peacetime under the extraordinary laws that were passed during times of war and crisis. Emergency powers of investigation should not become the standard once the crisis has passed," he said, drawing applause from his colleagues.

But House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, who shepherded the bill through the House, said sunset provisions were not necessary because there was no evidence the Patriot Act was being misused and lawmakers could provide sufficient oversight.

He also said 13 of the 16 provisions up for renewal have not been controversial, including one allowing increased communication between the FBI and CIA.

"Why sunset legislation where there's been no actual record of abuse and vigorous oversight?" Sensenbrenner said.

In the end, the amendment failed, with 209 in favor and 218 opposed.

One amendment that did pass overwhelmingly requires the FBI director to personally approve any FBI requests for bookstore or library records of suspected terrorists. Sponsored by Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Arizona, it passed 402-26.

Provisions allowing federal law enforcement to obtain library and bookstore records have been among the most controversial parts of the Patriot Act. The House's reauthorization bill does not eliminate the library provision, but it does tighten the language outlining how it can be used.

That's it I am moving to Canada. :wavey:

I was just about to ask for reactions to this.....Im not sure HOW I feel about it...on the one hand, I hate to see our civil liberties disappearing, but on the other, especially after the dual London bombings, I think we may have to bite the bullet and recognize that the security of the country is more important than individual rights....

I STILL think the Vulcan motto says it best: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.....or the one...........

How are we more secure than we were five years ago?

We are not. Anyone who thinks the Patriot Act makes us more secure is ill informed.

Legally, the US Govt. already had via other statutes like RICO like 95% of the powers in the PA. All the PA did was consolidate those into one act and then add a few other things that IMO pale in comparison to the things like warrantless searches.

As for making us safer - it does in many ways such as the registering of bank accounts, etc. If you can follow the money trail, you can catch people and most of that comes from RICO and other already existing statutes. In the end, I am not in love with the PA, but I think something had to be done to show an effort was being made to try and catch these horrible people. I mean like Mary said, our freedom (and we were never really totally free) has to be curtailed if we want to catch these bad people. If that means i have to fill out a few more forms when I open a checking account - so be it as that is a small price to pay. Where I get uneasy is when they conduct the warrantless searches (which they were doing anyway) and the detainee stuff. Anyway, my $0.02 :cool:

Here is a cool article on the PA

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...s/patriot.html

I'll have to read it later. I'm going driving. :)

in your hot pink rental Kia Sephia or Geo Metro :laugh: :laugh:

edit - oops - I just saw you got your car back - that was quick BTW :cool:

Im not sure I like the idea of warrantless searches but on the other hand, I dont see that Im in any danger of being subjected to one as I dont fit the profile :rolleyes: Even if I WERE searched, I have nothing to hide so BRING IT ON! :nod: Having said that, I firmly agree with airport searches and Im beginning to think that all modes of public transportation need some sort of electronic x-ray (or whatever the heck it is) type of portal like you see at courthouses etc....that includes busses (I say put it on the bus itself! have an alarm go off if it detects explosives or whatever), subways, airplanes, and all major tourist attractions, landmarks museums etc....I think the technology is relatively available, and compared to the alternative (rebuilding skyscrapers, tunnels etc) is much more cost effective.....

Oh honey, it was a Pontiac that was a bad red/burgundy color of nail polish with gray felt like interior. Yuck, yuck, yuck. Every time I got out of the car it shocked me from the static. I damn near hugged my car in the parking lot when I pulled up and saw it. I was like "Oh baby." :lol: :lol: :lol: