Deleted
Joined: Apr 18, 2024 4:04:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2011 13:02:48 GMT -5
www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/08/house.patriot.act/index.html?hpt=T2House defeats bill extending Patriot Act provisions until DecemberFrom Deirdre Walsh, CNN February 8, 2011 9:17 p.m. EST Washington (CNN) -- A bill to extend three provisions of the Patriot Act and Intelligence Reform bill that are due to expire next month failed to win approval Tuesday from the U.S. House of Representatives. The House voted 277-148 in favor of the bill, which fell short of the 284 votes needed to pass, because it was considered under a House rule that required a two-thirds majority.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 18, 2024 4:04:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2011 13:06:57 GMT -5
Thoughts, anyone?? Areas like this are where I get bogged down in the grey zone. I DO understand the intrusion in to our freedom. I also understand that some bad guys have been caught this way. Wondering what you guys think. I am thinking the freedoms are more important. Does this mean they can no longer invade us for NO REASON??
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 9, 2011 13:18:45 GMT -5
Well, the reason they needed the 2/3 majority is they were expediting the measure. Under the normal process, all they'd have needed would be a simple majority. Which they have.
I'm surprised that they'd take a vote on something without first ensuring that they had the votes to pass it. This is more of an embarrassment to Boehner than anything else.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 9, 2011 13:22:35 GMT -5
Thoughts, anyone?? Areas like this are where I get bogged down in the grey zone. I DO understand the intrusion in to our freedom. I also understand that some bad guys have been caught this way. Wondering what you guys think. I am thinking the freedoms are more important. Does this mean they can no longer invade us for NO REASON?? I wonder what the three provisions that are expiring deal with, since the House is conservative/republican controlled..not all republicans were in favor and I wonder how the vote broke down by parties..would have to know more about the provisions and voting of to comment. Any comment with just what you presented would be a shot from the hip..a general blast that wouldn't mean anything. Why not google and find what the provisions were and how the parties voted on it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 18, 2024 4:04:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2011 13:39:13 GMT -5
Well, these are the 3 things shot down. (from the link) One of the three provisions, Section 206 of the Patriot Act, provides for roving wiretap surveillance of targets who try to thwart Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) surveillance. Without such roving wiretap authority, investigators would be forced to seek a new court order each time they need to change the location, phone or computer that needs to be monitored.
Another provision, Section 215, allows the FBI to apply to the FISA court to issue orders granting the government access to any tangible items in foreign intelligence, international terrorism and clandestine intelligence cases.
The third provision, Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act of 2004, closes a loophole that could allow individual terrorists not affiliated with specific organizations to slip through the cracks of FISA surveillance. Law enforcement officials refer to it as the "lone wolf" provision.
The vote was not along party lines, not surprisingly to me. While Dems here may think Pubs "lost" this one-- you are not considering the fact that conservatives strongly value their freedoms and many felt the Patriot Act was a violation from day one. I don't care about the politics of this, really. I'm just trying to figure out if this is good or bad, so I am hoping to hear how others feel that know enough about this to have a strong feeling about it.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 9, 2011 13:39:48 GMT -5
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 9, 2011 13:42:19 GMT -5
I'm just trying to figure out if this is good or bad
Neither. It will pass later under the normal process. The White House supports it and Obama will sign it.
Personally, I've had a lot of reservations about it from day one, but a lot of the worst parts have already been amended. And I seriously doubt that it really makes us "safer". It does make some people feel good.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 9, 2011 13:54:01 GMT -5
Well, these are the 3 things shot down. (from the link) One of the three provisions, Section 206 of the Patriot Act, provides for roving wiretap surveillance of targets who try to thwart Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) surveillance. Without such roving wiretap authority, investigators would be forced to seek a new court order each time they need to change the location, phone or computer that needs to be monitored. Another provision, Section 215, allows the FBI to apply to the FISA court to issue orders granting the government access to any tangible items in foreign intelligence, international terrorism and clandestine intelligence cases. The third provision, Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act of 2004, closes a loophole that could allow individual terrorists not affiliated with specific organizations to slip through the cracks of FISA surveillance. Law enforcement officials refer to it as the "lone wolf" provision. The vote was not along party lines, not surprisingly to me. While Dems here may think Pubs "lost" this one-- you are not considering the fact that conservatives strongly value their freedoms and many felt the Patriot Act was a violation from day one. I don't care about the politics of this, really. I'm just trying to figure out if this is good or bad, so I am hoping to hear how others feel that know enough about this to have a strong feeling about it. First kudo's for your quick finding of the specifics Krickett..your getting real good here, congrats. While I am a middle to the left and here is where my middle and at times leaning to the right come in. I am a realist, believe we are in a war, and I have no problem, if in giving up some rights given to me my the constitution , protects us from a new type of enemy. One that relies on secrecy, underground armies more then the ones we normally are worried about, the standing ones we can see and have knowledge about and if the giovernment feels these laws are needed, so be it . It won't affect me personally and I have nothing to hide and as long not used purposly used aginst me on a personal basis, and if in a acticve investigation I was looked at for some reason, I will live with it. Price you pay for the safety of all. On these three specidics, I find nothing wrong with their being enacted. Again I haven't heard the arguments Pro and Con just off what you posted and if some from the right and left were against the enactment of because of those feelings of infringements, I would say get real , get off your high horse and think more along the lines I just espoused. Again , on your quck response to my request of more facts ;D
|
|
ChiTownVenture
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 10:39:06 GMT -5
Posts: 648
|
Post by ChiTownVenture on Feb 9, 2011 13:54:21 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 18, 2024 4:04:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2011 13:56:47 GMT -5
I've binged this to death, and all I see is politics. How about maybe, just MAYBE people just voted the right way, according to what their constituants WANT, for once, and it split the vote?? Is that even a possibility?? These people know they are under the gun, politically, and they damn better do what the people want. I wonder if we will see more votes like this. Of course-- Dems stayed in their little huddle. I find it encouraging that Pubs strayed from party. Failure?? Or doing what the people want?
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Feb 9, 2011 13:57:15 GMT -5
One of the few areas I agree with the tea party on.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 18, 2024 4:04:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2011 14:04:35 GMT -5
I can easily see how this type of thing could cross party lines, Dez. From what all of you have said-- it is a personal opinion, more than politics. I'm torn because I value our freedoms very much, but we are at war, let's face it, with an enemy that is within as much as without now, and I want the gov't to be ON this. Even so, though-- all these terrorists seem to slip through the cracks, but we do hear sometimes about arrests as the result of surveillance. Unless someone is up to no good, why worry?? I know LOTS of Americans disagree with what I just said.
|
|
ChiTownVenture
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 10:39:06 GMT -5
Posts: 648
|
Post by ChiTownVenture on Feb 9, 2011 14:12:02 GMT -5
I can easily see how this type of thing could cross party lines, Dez. From what all of you have said-- it is a personal opinion, more than politics. I'm torn because I value our freedoms very much, but we are at war, let's face it, with an enemy that is within as much as without now, and I want the gov't to be ON this. Even so, though-- all these terrorists seem to slip through the cracks, but we do hear sometimes about arrests as the result of surveillance. Unless someone is up to no good, why worry?? I know LOTS of Americans disagree with what I just said. It's very much a political issue, and cause to worry. The act destroys our personal freedoms, freedoms that are given to us through the constitution and 100s of years of laws, the same freedoms we are trying to protect from terrorists. Whats the point in protecting our freedoms from terrorist if the government is just going to take them away?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 18, 2024 4:04:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2011 14:22:31 GMT -5
I get that, chi. Like I said, I am stuck in the gray zone here. Can't for the life of me form a solid opinion on this.
|
|
burnsattornincan
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:05:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by burnsattornincan on Feb 9, 2011 14:27:35 GMT -5
I didn't know the Tea Party was against this. So far there is nothing that I disagree with about their policies. Maybe they have in mind to go all the way with this fiasco of "homeland security" and the billions of dollars wasted since 911. Eliminate everything created since then and do it the old fashioned way by cutting out all the bs and simply applying racial profiling since 99.999 of terrorists are Muslim. Go ahead liberals, McVeigh yourselves away, you don't have much else.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Feb 9, 2011 14:28:18 GMT -5
Quite a few Republicans, especially those of the incoming group, are against the expansive executive powers of surveillance and detention afforded by the Patriot Act. It's not a surprise they are against it. It was bad under Bush, but is downright dangerous under power-grabbers like Obama and the racist Eric Holder, who I could easily see using these powers, Nixon-like, to spy on and harass their domestic political enemies...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 18, 2024 4:04:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2011 14:30:33 GMT -5
Dang, burns, I just "spent" my exalt. LOL-- I like to exalt you just because-- seems to be the thing to do!! (you are more guns and ammo, right??)
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 9, 2011 14:32:55 GMT -5
I didn't know the Tea Party was against this
The tea partiers aren't united on this. Michele Bachmann voted for it.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 9, 2011 14:37:29 GMT -5
“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” (Benjamin Franklin)
|
|
burnsattornincan
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:05:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by burnsattornincan on Feb 9, 2011 14:45:20 GMT -5
Good day dear krickitt, yes, guns and an ample supply of ammunition is never a bad thing these days. Thank you for your support and admiration.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 9, 2011 15:27:28 GMT -5
I can easily see how this type of thing could cross party lines, Dez. From what all of you have said-- it is a personal opinion, more than politics. I'm torn because I value our freedoms very much, but we are at war, let's face it, with an enemy that is within as much as without now, and I want the gov't to be ON this. Even so, though-- all these terrorists seem to slip through the cracks, but we do hear sometimes about arrests as the result of surveillance. Unless someone is up to no good, why worry?? I know LOTS of Americans disagree with what I just said. As I said...I have no trouble with my rights POSSIBLE being , lets say manipulated, if the ones who do these things need the tools to try and keep us safe. Hope you noticed the try..can't ask for anything more, and if they feel they need these tools, so be it....hopefully excesses and unnecessary harassment will be seen and dealt with..till I read about many of those thing happening, I stay with my post above, others might feel differently, and being from left or right has nothing to do with it, you would think from my middle to the left stand on things i would be against the enforcement and the bill and law in total, but I am not and there are those so far right who feel the opposite.
|
|
burnsattornincan
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:05:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by burnsattornincan on Feb 9, 2011 16:35:12 GMT -5
I think there is more to the Patriot Act than going after traditional terrorists ie: Muslims. The government is getting more concerned these days about their own citizens and with good reason. They have more or less been robbing the country of its wealth for over 100 years running and there are some very serious consequences yet to be felt for this. Most of us know why the second amendment was drafted. The words are clearly spelled out. It is not simply for personal protection, it is also for protection from tyrannical government. The "Patriot" Act gives them more tools to quell potential uprisings before they even start. This kind of act might fall under the category the founders warned would eventually appear in this democracy. They had a good remedy for it and tried to write the laws to allow for citizens to "abolish" it but that was a long time ago and the influx of so many different things especially third world immigrants has changed the dynamic of the whole concept. They certainly didn't account for that.
|
|
|
Post by marjar on Feb 9, 2011 16:38:12 GMT -5
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 9, 2011 16:51:04 GMT -5
I think there is more to the Patriot Act than going after traditional terrorists ie: Muslims. The government is getting more concerned these days about their own citizens and with good reason. They have more or less been robbing the country of its wealth for over 100 years running and there are some very serious consequences yet to be felt for this. Most of us know why the second amendment was drafted. The words are clearly spelled out. It is not simply for personal protection, it is also for protection from tyrannical government. The "Patriot" Act gives them more tools to quell potential uprisings before they even start. This kind of act might fall under the category the founders warned would eventually appear in this democracy. They had a good remedy for it and tried to write the laws to allow for citizens to "abolish" it but that was a long time ago and the influx of so many different things especially third world immigrants has changed the dynamic of the whole concept. They certainly didn't account for that. Methinks you love Becks recent broadcasts..all those possibilitis and conspiracies..you would fit right in.
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Feb 9, 2011 16:57:31 GMT -5
One of the three provisions, Section 206 of the Patriot Act, provides for roving wiretap surveillance of targets who try to thwart Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) surveillance. Without such roving wiretap authority, investigators would be forced to seek a new court order each time they need to change the location, phone or computer that needs to be monitored. Read more: notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=politics&action=display&thread=3137#ixzz1DV7YdXBjI really believe this provision is needed because of the change in our phone usage - and is no more intrusive than the old system was when all we used were land lines. Just a case here of law enforcement catching up with technology
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Feb 9, 2011 16:58:43 GMT -5
I suspect they are somewhat legitimate
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 18, 2024 4:04:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2011 17:06:53 GMT -5
Jan Nap knows some things, she just does not do much about some-- like the border, where I live. Pick and choose. Too bad those pesky terrorists are entering with the future Dem voter illegals. Real dilemma for Jan Nap and Obama.
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Feb 9, 2011 17:08:49 GMT -5
Jan Nap knows some things, she just does not do much about some-- like the border, where I live. Pick and choose. Too bad those pesky terrorists are entering with the future Dem voter illegals. Real dilemma for Jan Nap and Obama. LOL - agreed
|
|
ChiTownVenture
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 10:39:06 GMT -5
Posts: 648
|
Post by ChiTownVenture on Feb 9, 2011 17:09:37 GMT -5
One of the three provisions, Section 206 of the Patriot Act, provides for roving wiretap surveillance of targets who try to thwart Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) surveillance. Without such roving wiretap authority, investigators would be forced to seek a new court order each time they need to change the location, phone or computer that needs to be monitored. Read more: notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=politics&action=display&thread=3137#ixzz1DV7YdXBjI really believe this provision is needed because of the change in our phone usage - and is no more intrusive than the old system was when all we used were land lines. Just a case here of law enforcement catching up with technology There is an easy solution to this, make a Federal Judge available to issue the court orders. No need to trample on rights.
|
|
|
Post by marjar on Feb 9, 2011 17:16:47 GMT -5
I suspect they are somewhat legitimate I'm sure some of the concerns are legitimate, if not all. The timing of this is what I find a bit suspect.
|
|