GOP to attempt to make Patriot Act permanent

Is anyone the least bit surprised at this?

 

While America's oldest conservative lobbying organization is against PA II as written, they are behind making PA I more "permanent."

Pakovits, there's nary a soul with a pulse who is surprised...

 

The tax cuts were temporary -- WRONG!!!

The loss of civil liberties was temporary -- WRONG, FOOL!!!




Sorry, I was having a Mr. Cam moment. Anyhow, this seems like it might be a bit of a bluff. Feingold wanted to add an amendment asking for more disclosure on FBI searches, and opponent Hatch countered with this. Hence, if Feingold drops his amendment, Hatch should drop his. We'll see how it plays out.

 

Joseph Pakovits thinks Mr. Cam is really Bobdole. Or Mr. T. FOOL!

 

I don't understand why the government needs these tools since the threat of terrorism is over. Wouldn't we be better off going to the UN and having Kofi Annan sit down and talk to terrorists. Then I'm sure they'll stop.

 

What I don't get is now that Saddam is driven from power, aren't the terrorists defeated? Bush already told us al-Qaeda is no longer a threat. With OBL and Saddam gone, who could possibly threaten us? So why does this have to be permanent?

 

This is so unfair. Bush was referring to those killed or caught. Not the group as a whole.

 

Make no mistake...

It was all part of Bush's strategery.

 

Those who agree with you, and felt that terrorism was such a threat that no price was too high to fight it, supported PA I unconditionally. They didn't have the votes to pass it by thenselves.

On the other side of the spectrum are those who opposed PA I. They felt that PA I was so broadly written, and that the "war on terror" was likely to go on for such a long time, that the power it gave the executive branch was too great a threat to our freedom. They didn't have enough votes to kill the bill.

That leaves the group in the middle who tried to straddle the line. They felt that terrorism was enough of a threat post 9/11 to give the executive these powers on a temporary basis in order to make us safe. However, they also agreed with opponents that giving the executive the sole right to declare someone a terrorist, without review by anyone, and treat them accordingly presented too much of a danger to allow on a permanent basis. They will again be the critical bloc in any attempt to make PA I permanent and to pass PA II.


All that being said, after reading the article I agree with Obie that this may all go away again for the short term. Feingold is trying to chip away at some of the powers/secrecy already given, and Hatch is threatening to retaliate in an effort to get him to back down.

 

This is a lie started by Dan Loney and repeated by Joe Pakovits. Sort of like the lie Bush made about Al Queda in Iraq. When are all these people going to stop lying to us?

 

I'm hoping Jan. 20, 2005

 

Off topic but....

The lie is NOT that AQ is in Iraq. The lie was that they were being supported by Saddam. Once again, AQ was/is in Kurdish Iraq, supported in all likelihood by Iran and fighting against the Kurds.

 

Considering Democrats always tell the truth. Don't believe all the propoganda you hear on Capitol Hill.

 

Just to clarify, since I got into a fight here with someone else about this exact same phrasing. What Bush actually said during the SotU address was that AQ was "on the run" and that we were "winning the war on terrorism". The person who called AQ "no longer a threat" was Hamid Karzai (he was talking about in Afghanistan). When asked where Osama was, it was an unnamed person in the Defense Dept who replied "Who cares?"

 

It was low hanging fruit. No administration is ever completely honest. Thanks for the political lesson, I'm finally free of my innocence.

 

As long as you can sit and watch the carriages go by, replete in your imaginary cocoon of conservative economic freedom, I'm sure you're willing to allow for any and every "tool" the Ashcroft regime can force through Congress to "keep you safe." Why do you hate our freedoms? Why do you hate our Constitution?

Observe the Ashcroft game: leak PA II -which is so outrageous that the ACU is objecting to it - then back off of that extreme position to look like your acquiescing to get, as a "compromise," a "permanent" PA I, and end up getting what you want anyway.

Except that those of us who take the Constitution seriously - even if its perceived to keep us "less safe" by doing so - will do everything in our power to ensure that Ashcroft does not get his way.

 

If you get a chance in between burning effigies of Ashcroft, spend a moment reviewing what the jackbooted Senator from Delaware is trying to do with his assinine RAVE act. People don't need much help from Ashcroft for this crap.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel013003.asp

 

OK, this pissed me off. I know he's "unnamed," but if they can find out who this was, he should be summarily fired. 30 minutes to clean out his office fired.

Am I overreacting? I don't find this flippant remark just wrong, I find it offensive.

 

I will answer your intelligent questions when you answer the following questions. Why do you hate America? Why do you like Fidel Castro? Why do you admire the work of Joe Stalin?

 

Funny how when someone asks why do you hate freedom? the instinctive response is as quoted above. Does loving America go hand-in-hand with hating freedom? Seems that the opposite should be true.

 

You won't be able to hide your obvious pussification and your hatred of Constitutional rights for all by trying to associate me with these people. The day you can point to any post of mine, and place it alongside ANY quote from these humps, and say they're similar is the day we'll all know you've gone completely over the edge...

 

I'm sure all the people who want extra security hate our consitution. Seems to me that Universal is reaching quite a bit in his attacks as he always does. Of course he's attacking people on the Right so that doesn't bother you.

 

Don't be so sure who you are talking to... What makes you think I am leftist?

Extra security should never come at the price of freedom, that would called a prison. I believe that is a conservative thought as much as it is liberal.

Common sense knows no party, both are bound to make absolutely ridiculous decisions based on partisanship rather than a well-reasoned assessment of the facts. I just happen to think that our attorney general and others on the conservative side have it wrong with the Patriot Act. The name itself eludes to the idea that to oppose it, is to oppose strong positive feelings for the USA. A misnomer indeed. "Anti-terrorist security act" would have been a better name.

 

Not sure if you realize the inherent flaws in your argument? Echelon has been around for a long time not only in US but in Europe and Australia. Does that mean that Europeans and Australians hate freedom as well? How about police coming to search someone's home even with a warrant? Isn't that taking away freedom from people that are found to be innocent? There is a level of government involvement in our lives in order to solve crimes and to prevent future crimes from occuring. If you dislike the Patriot Act because it goes to far, that is one thing. To accuse someone who might see the benefit of it as hating freedom is overreaching on your part.