Congress Quietly prepares to Renew PATRIOT Act

[bobbyw24]

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) has introduced a little-noticed bill that intends to once again renew controversial provisions of the Bush administration's USA Patriot Act that are due to expire this year.

When the act was first signed into law, Congress put in some "sunset" provisions to quiet the concerns of civil libertarians, but they were ignored by successive extensions. Unfortunately, those concerns proved to be well founded, and a 2008 Justice Department report confirmed that the FBI regularly abused their ability to obtain personal records of Americans without a warrant.

The only real sign of strong opposition to the act was in 2005, when a Democratic threat to filibuster its first renewal was overcome by Senate Republicans.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/congress-quietly-prepares-renew-patriot-act/

Ron Paul on the PATRIOT Act:

Supporters of the Patriot Act argue that its provisions have not been abused since its passage in 2001. In essence, Justice Department officials are claiming, “Trust us — we're the government and we say the Patriot Act does not threaten civil liberties.”

But this argument misses the point. Government assurances simply are not good enough in a free society. The overwhelming burden always must be placed on government to justify any new encroachment on our liberty. Now that the emotions of September 11th have cooled, the American people are less willing to blindly accept terrorism as an excuse for expanding federal surveillance powers.

Many of the most constitutionally offensive measures in the Act are not limited to terrorist offenses, but apply to any criminal activity. In fact, some of the new police powers could be applied even to those engaging in peaceful protest against government policies. The bill as written defines terrorism as acts intended “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.” Under this broad definition, a scuffle at an otherwise peaceful pro-life demonstration might subject attendees to a federal investigation. We have seen abuses of law enforcement authority in the past to harass individuals or organizations with unpopular political views. Congress has given future administrations a tool to investigate pro-life or gun rights organizations on the grounds that fringe members of such groups advocate violence.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul247.html

[Elwar]

How are bills being introduced when Congress is not yet in session?

[sailingaway]

I hope the filibuster stays as is, and Rand filibusters this.

I think there is another thread on this somewhere, fyi.

[ItsTime]

I thought the patriot act was made permanent?

[PreDeadMan]

The people that work for the violent monopoly don't even need this legislation in place to do the things in it anyway.... whether it's abolished or not makes no difference anyway..... they can always spy on you they don't need to say look the patriot act allows me to!...

[sailingaway]

I thought the patriot act was made permanent?

No, it was extended again.

[Slutter McGee]

good intentions do not negate the high potential for future abuse. stupid people.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[sailingaway]

Someone posted the C4L CPAC presentation topics and 'Repeal the Patriot Act' is one of them. :D

[QueenB4Liberty]

The people that work for the violent monopoly don't even need this legislation in place to do the things in it anyway.... whether it's abolished or not makes no difference anyway..... they can always spy on you they don't need to say look the patriot act allows me to!...

Exactly.

[kah13176]

Just emailed Justin Amash asking him to oppose/vote "no".

[Brett85]

I've never actually taken the time to read this bill, so I can't claim to be any kind of expert on what is actually in it. Is the consensus here that the entire bill is unconstitutional and should be repealed? Or are there just certain problematic parts of the Patriot Act that should either be reformed or repealed?

[Kludge]

I just wanna be able to open a damned bank account. :mad:

[sailingaway]

I've never actually taken the time to read this bill, so I can't claim to be any kind of expert on what is actually in it. Is the consensus here that the entire bill is unconstitutional and should be repealed? Or are there just certain problematic parts of the Patriot Act that should either be reformed or repealed?

I read it, then they changed it and I read the changes and still had problems with it. Sure, it could be culled of all bad stuff, but short of being in the room and controlling the word processor as they negotiated it, I wouldn't trust they hadn't 'cured' with one hand and shafted us further with the other until I saw the bill in final form after passage (because you know it is rarely in final form as brought to a vote.)

I'd like to turn that upside down: what is in it that is not already somewhere else, that we need for good reason and is actually Constitutional? And let them put that into a separate bill with new hearings (because the Patriot Act won't get them, being 'already known'.) We may have to take less, but that is the only way I'd actually be comfortable with the process. I didn't note anything in the bill that we needed that we already didn't have, that wasn't offensive to civil liberties. After 9/11 they just grabbed Biden's old bill off the shelf, and it hadn't been passed previously for good reason imho.

One big problem with the Patriot Act entire framework is the idea that the designated authority can merely 'decide' someone is a potential terrorist then all provisions can be applied to that person. The lack of due process in that initial point is problematic throughout. If that was changed, I didn't see it, but I have not read the last version they passed cover to cover.

[Brett85]

I read it, then they changed it and I read the changes and still had problems with it. Sure, it could be culled of all bad stuff, but short of being in the room and controlling the word processor as they negotiated it, I wouldn't trust they hadn't 'cured' with one hand and shafted us further with the other until I saw the bill in final form after passage (because you know it is rarely in final form as brought to a vote.)

I'd like to turn that upside down: what is in it that is not already somewhere else, that we need for good reason and is actually Constitutional? And let them put that into a separate bill with new hearings (because the Patriot Act won't get them, being 'already known'.) We may have to take less, but that is the only way I'd actually be comfortable with the process. I didn't note anything in the bill that we needed that we already didn't have, that wasn't offensive to civil liberties. After 9/11 they just grabbed Biden's old bill off the shelf, and it hadn't been passed previously for good reason imho.

One big problem with the Patriot Act entire framework is the idea that the designated authority can merely 'decide' someone is a potential terrorist then all provisions can be applied to that person. The lack of due process in that initial point is problematic throughout. If that was changed, I didn't see it, but I have not read the last version they passed cover to cover.

I had heard that one part of the Patriot Act simply struck down a wall between intelligence agencies. It basically allowed them to communicate more effectively with each other. To me that doesn't sound like something controversial, as it isn't a provision that allows for warrantless searches or infringes on any part of the Bill of Rights.

[kah13176]

I had heard that one part of the Patriot Act simply struck down a wall between intelligence agencies. It basically allowed them to communicate more effectively with each other. To me that doesn't sound like something controversial, as it isn't a provision that allows for warrantless searches or infringes on any part of the Bill of Rights.

True, but if it includes the Department of Homeland Security, well, the DHS should be eliminated. But yes, more communication between FBI and CIA might be good.

[Anti Federalist]

How Sweet

Posted by Lew Rockwell on January 16, 2011 01:21 PM

Two of the most despicable senators, Schumer (from Predator Party A) and Coburn (from Predator Party B), are to sit together during the Obama ‘All Glory to the State’ oration. Need a moment to get a tissue? Only to Capitol creeps could this be good news. Does “civility” presage even more cooperation between these chicken-hawk aggressors? They want to expand the wars that have already killed more than a million Muslim civilians. Perhaps they will also cooperate on more of their other favorites, such as the CIA and the homeland police state. Surely they will denounce violent rhetoric as they bark for murdering Iranian Muslims by the carload.

[Brett85]

How Sweet

Posted by Lew Rockwell on January 16, 2011 01:21 PM

Two of the most despicable senators, Schumer (from Predator Party A) and Coburn (from Predator Party B), are to sit together during the Obama ‘All Glory to the State’ oration. Need a moment to get a tissue? Only to Capitol creeps could this be good news. Does “civility” presage even more cooperation between these chicken-hawk aggressors? They want to expand the wars that have already killed more than a million Muslim civilians. Perhaps they will also cooperate on more of their other favorites, such as the CIA and the homeland police state. Surely they will denounce violent rhetoric as they bark for murdering Iranian Muslims by the carload.

Coburn is one of the better Senators we have. He's voted against war funding since at least 2007.

[Anti Federalist]

Coburn is one of the better Senators we have. He's voted against war funding since at least 2007.

Coburn to work with Schumer on gun control:


Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who appeared with Schumer, agreed that the law was not written with a case like Loughner in mind.

"There's a hole in what we need to do. And I'm willing to work with Senator Schumer and anybody else that wants to make sure people who are mentally ill cannot get and use a gun," he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/16/schumer-require-military-report-applicants-drug-use-prevent-gun-purchases/



Sitting down and writing more restrictive gun laws (especially when that includes more intrusive and sweeping databases) with Chucky Schumer is a permanent deal breaker for me.

[Brett85]

Coburn to work with Schumer on gun control:



Sitting down and writing more restrictive gun laws (especially when that includes more intrusive and sweeping databases) with Chucky Schumer is a permanent deal breaker for me.

Yeah, that isn't good. He needs to realize that there isn't any Constitutional authority for any federal gun control laws.

[sailingaway]

I had heard that one part of the Patriot Act simply struck down a wall between intelligence agencies. It basically allowed them to communicate more effectively with each other. To me that doesn't sound like something controversial, as it isn't a provision that allows for warrantless searches or infringes on any part of the Bill of Rights.

I don't remember seeing that at all; you are right that that administrative change makes sense, however, nothing in the law prevents it without the Patriot Act. And I'll have to look at this again since it is coming up, but I honestly DON'T remember it being in the bill. My understanding is that that was the justification for DHS being created, to cover both and insure communication. We saw how well that worked with the underwear bomber, didn't we? It was just another layer on top.

[sailingaway]

Yeah, that isn't good. He needs to realize that there isn't any Constitutional authority for any federal gun control laws.

Also, this guy wasn't determined psycho. The idea that the govt can make you disprove being psycho when no one has ever said you were, is a very slippery slope.

[low preference guy]

Also, this guy wasn't determined psycho. The idea that the govt can make you disprove being psycho when no one has ever said you were, is a very slippery slope.

yeah. i don't want the government, or even physicians, to decide who is a psycho worth locking up. i'd rather take the risk of some pyscho doing something terrible over having people arbitrarily getting locked up because someone decided they are crazy.

i think i would accept somebody getting locked up against his will because he is crazy only if he gave a written permission to a parent or somebody to make that decision for him.

[Brett85]

Also, this guy wasn't determined psycho. The idea that the govt can make you disprove being psycho when no one has ever said you were, is a very slippery slope.

Yeah I know. Both my dad, my sister, and I have had to take anti depressants at various times for depression like symptoms. If you had a really loose law all three of us could be determined to be "mentally ill" and not allowed to own a gun.

[Anti Federalist]

Yeah I know. Both my dad, my sister, and I have had to take anti depressants at various times for depression like symptoms. If you had a really loose law all three of us could be determined to be "mentally ill" and not allowed to own a gun.

Could?

No, you can count on it.

You'd enact de facto gun prohibition for tens of millions of people, overnight.

Keeping in mind that the provisions of the 68 GCA do not just ban "prohibited persons" from buying weapons, you must turn in or transfer ownership of any weapons you already have, under pain of stiff jail time and fines, the minute you become a "prohibited person".