Surprise: Vote to extend three Patriot Act provisions fails in House

posted at 9:02 pm on February 8, 2011 by Allahpundit

A bit embarrassing for Boehner insofar as this was expected to be a slam dunk. So much so, in fact, that they used a fast-track procedure to bring it to the floor, which required a two-thirds vote instead of a simple majority.

What could go wrong?

Nine freshmen and three inaugural members of the House Tea Party Caucus cast votes against a proposed extension of three Patriot Act provisions Tuesday night, helping block the measure from passage under fast-track rules…

Those [Republicans] who voted no Tuesday night included Roscoe G. Bartlett (Md.), Paul Broun (Ga.) and Walter B. Jones (N.C.), all of whom were original members of the House Tea Party Caucus when it was founded last summer.

And nine [Republican] freshmen also voted no: Justin Amash (Mich.), Michael G. Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Christopher P. Gibson (N.Y.), Tom Graves (Ga.), Randy Hultgren (Ill.), Raul R. Labrador (Idaho), Robert Schilling (Ill.), David Schweikert (Ariz.) and Rob Woodall (Ga.).

Here’s the full roll. The bill failed 277-148, just seven votes shy of passage, with fully 26 Republicans voting no. Like Weigel says, the media narrative tomorrow will be that the tea party killed it, but plenty of TP heavyweights (Bachmann, Allen West, etc.) were in the majority. And the bill will end up passing, of course. They’ll simply bring it back to the floor, which Lamar Smith is vowing to do later this week, and vote on it under normal slow-track rules, which will give opponents the chance to offer amendments but will assure passage per today’s heavy majority in favor.

The three provisions, incidentally, were for surveillance of non-citizens, roving wiretaps of multiple phones owned by a suspect, and the “library records” provision giving the FBI access to, among other things, medical and business records, which apparently was the sticking point for many Republicans voting no. Those three will lapse at the end of the month unless they’re extended; as with the Bush tax cuts, because the issue is contentious, Congress is in perpetual “temporary” extension mode instead of reaching a permanent resolution on any of them. Frankly, if there’s any tea party angle to all this, it’s that there wasn’t more opposition among the GOP freshmen: After months of rhetoric about government intrusion and hand-wringing on both sides about Obama’s expansion of Bush’s counterterror powers — to the point where U.S. citizens like Awlaki are now marked for death by presidential decree — they had some political cover to draw the line on extending parts of the Patriot Act further if they wanted to. (Ron Paul was among the 26 no’s, of course.) Nope.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

In fact I remember you lot whining “if you have nothing to hide, why worry?”

Grow Fins on February 8, 2011 at 10:14 PM

Funny, I don’t remember the chorus of dissenting conservatives during the Bush administrations strenuous defense of “vast government intrusion” in 2002.

Grow Fins on February 8, 2011 at 10:11 PM

Funny, I don’t remember Obama being in the White House in 2002. It’s not to PA that is so bothersome to many of us, it’s the Manchurian President that does.

Keemo on February 8, 2011 at 10:14 PM

I simply think we all need to watch this government very closely until this administration is gone.

Keemo on February 8, 2011 at 10:08 PM

see the founders understood this. they took away power from the good guys because they knew bad guys will come after. they saw how a country grew under a good king but failed under a bad one. their answer was not to give the power to either the good nor the bad but to the individual.

unseen on February 8, 2011 at 10:15 PM

Rovin on February 8, 2011 at 10:08 PM

Its good to debate these points. I know a lot of conservatives couldn’t get outraged before because they trusted a republican administration not to abuse the powers the Patriot Act provides. Of course, administrations change…but the expanded power of the government remains.

jp on February 8, 2011 at 10:12 PM

Yes, you highlighted “unreasonable.” So? Who decides what is “unreasonable”? You’re perfectly comfortable allowing the Executive Branch to decide this unilaterally without any balance by the judiciary (through the issuance of warrants)? Short-sighted…

Firefly_76 on February 8, 2011 at 10:16 PM

Funny, I don’t remember the chorus of dissenting conservatives during the Bush administrations strenuous defense of “vast government intrusion” in 2002.

Grow Fins on February 8, 2011 at 10:11 PM

And I’ve noticed a steady drop in daily war death counts from the media. I’ve also noticed a severely quieted anti-war movement. That despite a raging war in Afghanistan and more than a few soldiers still in “occupied” Iraq.

amerpundit on February 8, 2011 at 10:16 PM

Funny, I don’t remember the chorus of dissenting conservatives during the Bush administrations strenuous defense of “vast government intrusion” in 2002.

Grow Fins on February 8, 2011 at 10:11 PM

My view hasn’t changed at all. government doesn’t need this power and in is a threat to freedom and liberty. It matter not to me if its a gop president or a democratic president no one needs this power. no one.

unseen on February 8, 2011 at 10:16 PM

unseen on February 8, 2011 at 10:15 PM
Agreed, and brilliantly done…

Keemo on February 8, 2011 at 10:17 PM

Grow Fins on February 8, 2011 at 10:11 PM

You seem to have neglected to mention that the Obama administration supports the extension of all PA provisions…and that leading Democrats in the House voted for its extension (and leading Dems in the Senate support its extension as well).

Where’s the (selective) outrage, Grow Fins?

Firefly_76 on February 8, 2011 at 10:18 PM

Republicans should be ashamed that so many voted to extend it.

The last election was about scaling back government. Get to it or get voted out.

Chubbs65 on February 8, 2011 at 10:01 PM

There’s a big difference from scaling back government and preventing another Fort Hood slaying or another 9/11. If the correct provisions are written to also protect the privacy rights of all of us—ie redress of grievances, I have no problem with the government “checking me out”. Admittedly, there’s a fine line here, but Conservatives supported the Patriot Act for good reasons and intent.

Rovin on February 8, 2011 at 10:21 PM

see the founders understood this. they took away power from the good guys because they knew bad guys will come after. they saw how a country grew under a good king but failed under a bad one. their answer was not to give the power to either the good nor the bad but to the individual.

unseen on February 8, 2011 at 10:15 PM

and you have zero clue what the FOunding Fathers actually did in office, you know governing and all.

jp on February 8, 2011 at 10:23 PM

It matter not to me if its a gop president or a democratic president no one needs this power. no one.

unseen on February 8, 2011 at 10:16 PM

I feel like we have a Vulcan mind meld going on tonight :-)

Firefly_76 on February 8, 2011 at 10:23 PM

and you have zero clue what the FOunding Fathers actually did in office, you know governing and all.

jp on February 8, 2011 at 10:23 PM

your post made absoultely no sense what. so. ever.

unseen on February 8, 2011 at 10:25 PM

Funny, I don’t remember Obama being in the White House in 2002. It’s not to PA that is so bothersome to many of us, it’s the Manchurian President that does.

Keemo on February 8, 2011 at 10:14 PM

lol! Right on my friend. Fins can’t compute the difference.

Rovin on February 8, 2011 at 10:25 PM

Quote for me, please, where in the constitution it says you can not be investigated when suspected of something.

Skandia Recluse on February 8, 2011 at 9:28 PM

‘Your friend’ is suspected of making telephone calls to suspected terrorists, regularly comes to your house to use your telephone (rather than using his own because he thinks his might be monitored), and you think it unreasonable that the government should dare to tap your phone?

Skandia Recluse on February 8, 2011 at 9:52 PM

You asked where in the constitution it says that warrantless wiretaps are not allowed, and you got an answer — it says it right there in the constitution. You asked why it’s unreasonable for the government to wiretap you in a certain situation, and the obvious response was that in that situation the government should just get a warrant from a judge.

You then moved on from these points without any comment, and started asking why it was such a bad policy. You should really acknowledge that very solid answers were given for your questions, and that in fact the constitution does address this situation and that there are very reasonable and effective actions the government can take in your hypothetical situations. Just get a judge to issue a warrant. Warrantless searches in general are something to be avoided, and you should at least acknowledge that.

tneloms on February 8, 2011 at 10:26 PM

There should be no barriers in place to prevent the defense of our way of life.

viviliberoomuori

That could be a terrifying statement depending on what someone claims they’re defending…

tree hugging sister on February 8, 2011 at 10:28 PM

There’s a big difference from scaling back government and preventing another Fort Hood slaying or another 9/11. If the correct provisions are written to also protect the privacy rights of all of us—ie redress of grievances, I have no problem with the government “checking me out”. Admittedly, there’s a fine line here, but Conservatives supported the Patriot Act for good reasons and intent.

Rovin on February 8, 2011 at 10:21 PM

Explain to me how tapping a phone could have stopped Ft hood. The signs were everywhere. It was failure of people to connect the dots for both 9/11 and ft. hood because they will not allow themselves to target the real enemy because of PC bullcrap. The government does not need to make me a suspect when they can not even begin to understand who they should target. None of these provision would have stopped Ft. hood nor 9/11. these are nothing but CYA provision the government came up with so they wouldn’t have to resign in disgrace for dropping the ball so completely.

unseen on February 8, 2011 at 10:28 PM

Firefly_76 on February 8, 2011 at 10:23 PM

lol…..well some people understand freedom and some people think its nothing more than being able to screw who you want, smoke what you want and kill your baby…..

unseen on February 8, 2011 at 10:29 PM

understand why the government wants warrantless wiretapping provisions. because they do something called datamining. which m,eans they search ALL phone calls and search for key words and/or phrases. If they lose the provision they lose the ability to do this datamining or at least have to keep it secret. And that means they might actually have to get out from behind their desk and go look for the freaking terrorists and do things like profiles and such. Which becomes messy from a PC standpoint. It’s so much easier if the government just assumes everyone in the country is a potential terrorist and go from there.

unseen on February 8, 2011 at 10:33 PM

They want to search my phone my house go get a warrant. they want to ask my questions? fine call my lawyer. They want to arrest me fine prove their case. they want to know what books I’m reading get a warrant.

the power of the state uncheck leads to a police state.

Freedom is messy, freedom is chaos squared, freedom is the only answer.

We have policies and limits on government for a reason. Failure to adhere to those policies leads to bad things. It is shown in hiostory over and over and over again. the founders designed a document to ensure history did not repeat and freedom survived the evils of man’s drive for power at all costs.

what freedom to I give up? I give up the essesence of all my freedoms by consenting to have the government spy on my and mine whenever the hell they feel like it.

unseen on February 8, 2011 at 9:52 PM

I missed this unseen—well said. If probable cause is not used properly in the PA, we all lose certain liberties and it must not be tolerated. Again, if they care to “probe” I have nothing to hide. If they step over the line in any way, the full power and weight of the people should have their rights defended.

Rovin on February 8, 2011 at 10:40 PM

see the founders understood this. they took away power from the good guys because they knew bad guys will come after. they saw how a country grew under a good king but failed under a bad one. their answer was not to give the power to either the good nor the bad but to the individual.

Disagree. Their answer was not to give the power to anyone, but to recognize where the power always has been. Authority to govern derives from the consent of the governed.

Immolate on February 8, 2011 at 10:43 PM

Disagree. Their answer was not to give the power to anyone, but to recognize where the power always has been. Authority to govern derives from the consent of the governed.

Immolate on February 8, 2011 at 10:43 PM

i will agree with that.

unseen on February 8, 2011 at 10:45 PM

It’s not to PA that is so bothersome to many of us, it’s the Manchurian President that does.

Ah yes, “principles.” Got it.

Grow Fins on February 8, 2011 at 10:46 PM

Where’s the (selective) outrage, Grow Fins?

I don’t support the PA or Obama.

Grow Fins on February 8, 2011 at 10:48 PM

Fins can’t compute the difference.

Oh, I can smell hypocrisy and double standards easily enough. And this, ‘when Bush did it we were cool cuz we liked Bush, but now Obama does the same thing, ugh, we hate Obama’ argument reeks of the worst kind of sh*tty hypocrisy. even by your usual myopic wingnuttery standards.

Grow Fins on February 8, 2011 at 10:51 PM

Ah yes, “principles.” Got it.

Grow Fins on February 8, 2011 at 10:46 PM

I’m believing what my 57 year old eyes are telling me. Call that what you will.

Keemo on February 8, 2011 at 10:51 PM

I don’t support the PA or Obama.

Grow Fins on February 8, 2011 at 10:48 PM

I can’t believe you had the gull to write that. Reminds me of some wipe telling O’Reilly that he has not raised one tax.

Keemo on February 8, 2011 at 10:53 PM

O/T but thought this was cool:

Clunker Math”

**The person who calculated this bit of information went to high school in Pittsburgh, Pa. He is now & has been a professor at The University of West Virginia in Morgantown, West Virginia for the last forty years. I never looked at the clunker program in such depth.

Think of it this way: A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year. A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons of gas a year. So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year per car.
They claim 700,000 vehicles so that’s 224 million gallons saved per year. That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil. 5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption. More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70. per barrel costs about $350 million. So the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.
We spent $8.57 for every dollar we saved.

from a comment on C4p

unseen on February 8, 2011 at 10:54 PM

You asked where in the constitution it says that warrantless wiretaps are not allowed, and you got an answer
tneloms on February 8, 2011 at 10:26 PM

Yep, right there in the constitution is says unreasonable, and that is where the debate is. The balance between reasonable law enforcement and unreasonable behavior by law enforcement.

If you follow the entire thread, you might reach the conclusion that it is not the law that creates a police state. It is the abuse of policing power that creates the police state.

Skandia Recluse on February 8, 2011 at 10:54 PM

understand why the government wants warrantless wiretapping provisions. because they do something called datamining. which means they search ALL phone calls and search for key words and/or phrases. If they lose the provision they lose the ability to do this datamining or at least have to keep it secret. And that means they might actually have to get out from behind their desk and go look for the freaking terrorists and do things like profiles and such. Which becomes messy from a PC standpoint. It’s so much easier if the government just assumes everyone in the country is a potential terrorist and go from there.
unseen on February 8, 2011 at 10:33 PM

Again, I agree with your premise. But you dismiss data-mining as if it is a tool that only invades American Patriots when the process has proved to be an asset to incoming calls and emails from our enemies here and abroad. Don’t get me wrong, I’m on your side when it comes to restricting these methods. Profiling, just as the Israelis do had been the best deterrent for them, yet they also do extensive data-mining. We’re at an impasse here, and again it’s the balance and trust we have to have in our intelligence community. It’s the politicians we have to be worried about who might misuse this info, not the hard fighting folks looking for the terrorist.

Rovin on February 8, 2011 at 11:01 PM

The “Patriot Act”. An Act which nullifies key protections afforded U.S. citizens to allow the Government to act in direct violation to not only our Constitutional Protections, but to our Christian values.

What’s not to like???!!??

KMC1 on February 8, 2011 at 11:06 PM

Any politician who claims to support liberty and limited government and then votes in favor of preserving the horrible, freedom-destroying USA PATRIOT Act is a liar and hypocrite of the most execrable sort.

I’m glad the motion to suspend failed. At least now there will be open debate about it on the floor. It’s only a shame that it will most certainly pass when brought to the floor under the House rules.

Inkblots on February 8, 2011 at 11:09 PM

Call that what you will.

Seeing what you want to?

Grow Fins on February 8, 2011 at 11:10 PM

Grow Fins on February 8, 2011 at 10:51 PM

Bull. Please tell me how the masses of conservatives are against Obama prosecuting the war in Afghanistan. Obama faced reality while your darlings fell hypocritically silent from “Bushes War” Where’s the daily “yeah, but Bin laden’s not dead yet” from your crony leftards Fins????

Is it really in your budget to replace so many broken mirrors?

Rovin on February 8, 2011 at 11:11 PM

I can’t believe you had the gull to write that.

Why? It happens to be true.

Grow Fins on February 8, 2011 at 11:11 PM

Please tell me how the masses of conservatives are against Obama prosecuting the war in Afghanistan.

Right.

Grow Fins on February 8, 2011 at 11:13 PM

Again, I agree with your premise. But you dismiss data-mining as if it is a tool that only invades American Patriots when the process has proved to be an asset to incoming calls and emails from our enemies here and abroad. Don’t get me wrong, I’m on your side when it comes to restricting these methods. Profiling, just as the Israelis do had been the best deterrent for them, yet they also do extensive data-mining. We’re at an impasse here, and again it’s the balance and trust we have to have in our intelligence community. It’s the politicians we have to be worried about who might misuse this info, not the hard fighting folks looking for the terrorist.

Rovin on February 8, 2011 at 11:01 PM

yes its a great tool. So are police dogs and waterhoses to break up protests. the problem for me is that it makes the government assume that ALL citizens are potential terrorists. It sets up a mentality of the government vs the people. It removes the government from the people. And what is to stop the government from using the datamining to say I don’t know look up who is a conservative or a liberal instead of who is saying terrorists things. Or datamine for people having affairs, or homosexuals. Etc. By giving the government the power to do this for the terorists we set the precedent for them to do it for whatever they want as long as a case can be made its in the public’s interest. And as Obama shows to all an egomanic will use that power to the limit to ensure his power is unchecked.

Once a freedom is given up it is never recovered.

unseen on February 8, 2011 at 11:15 PM

Why? It happens to be true.

Grow Fins on February 8, 2011 at 11:11 PM

Wow, Fins… Seriously, when did you stop supporting Obama? Who do you support? I’m freakishly curious.

Firefly_76 on February 8, 2011 at 11:18 PM

And what is to stop the government from using the datamining to say I don’t know look up who is a conservative or a liberal instead of who is saying terrorists things. Or datamine for people having affairs, or homosexuals. Etc.

You and me my friend. Good conversation, and we can not let this “power” go unchecked. I guess I’m just as fearing those who would move back to the pre-9/11 mentality, that didnt even allow us to connect the dots.

Rovin on February 8, 2011 at 11:26 PM

that didnt even allow us to connect the dots.

Rovin on February 8, 2011 at 11:26 PM

but see that is the problem from my POV. even with all these powers we still are not connecting the dots.

I see the PA as a CYA of the government to 1) avoid having to take responsiblity for thier failures and 2 ) as a way to get the expanded powers that technology made possible but the consitituion would not allow by not letting a crisis go to waste.

unseen on February 8, 2011 at 11:29 PM

Rovin on February 8, 2011 at 11:26 PM

Yes, these conversations need to take place. Good points on both sides of this argument. One things for sure, we can’t take our eyes off government ever again. Power corrupts and money corrupts.. Government is full of power and money. When a known socialist nutter such as Soros can come in and literally become an influential player in one of our political parties, this is proof positive that enough money can take a person to great power even in America.

Keemo on February 8, 2011 at 11:34 PM

Doesn’t suprise me. There is a bit of Ron Paul influence with the Tea Party and some of the new members of Congress.

therightwinger on February 8, 2011 at 11:38 PM

What the hell is wrong with the conservatives? Have they gone completely mad? Clearly the Act must be continued? No individual has anything to fear from the absurd FBI, even if they are personally involved in highly bizarre flying lessons! My God, our counter-intelligence is already in the hands of the bungling idiots in the FBI! Making matters more difficult is clearly not the way to go! If there is a more useless counter-intelligence agency in the world than the FBI, it has yet to be seen! And by the way, they are not merely gross incompetents, the are very, very expensive bozos, to say the least.

John Adams on February 8, 2011 at 11:39 PM

influential player in one of our political parties, this is proof positive that enough money can take a person to great power even in America.

Keemo on February 8, 2011 at 11:34 PM

Who says his hands are in only one party?

unseen on February 8, 2011 at 11:41 PM

but see that is the problem from my POV. even with all these powers we still are not connecting the dots.

Can you really say that since 9/11 we did not learn how to connect the dots? Do you, (or any of us), really know, how many disasters have been avoided in the past ten years because the PA was in place? You’ll have to give me an example of where a quantity of folks are being herded into prison camps or their privacy infringed under the PA. When it happens, I will be the first at your side to come down hard on this government along with millions who will not tolerate any abuse of power. If you really want to expend your frustration on expanded powers, we still have a President and Senate to deal with.

Talk with you tomorrow…….

Rovin on February 8, 2011 at 11:47 PM

Well, it does show that this new crop of GOPers can think for themselves, unlike the puppets on the Dem side. Whether or not y’all think this vote was right or wrong, it’s kind of nice to have folks who do their own thinking for a change and not the Pelosi clones.

jeanie on February 8, 2011 at 11:47 PM

Who says his hands are in only one party?

unseen on February 8, 2011 at 11:41 PM

Agreed… Not happy about that one bit!

Keemo on February 8, 2011 at 11:47 PM

Palin called out Soros, and I’m pretty sure Cheney did as well. Other than those two, I can’t think of any other Republicans who dared mention his name in public. Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity, and several others from talk radio do investigative research on Soros and share it; Beck has been on to Soros for at least a few years. This site has run some good pieces on Soros as well, and Malkin has done some extensive research as well.

Very dangerous man who has his finger prints on much of what we see from the Obama administration.

Keemo on February 8, 2011 at 11:59 PM

Funny, I don’t remember the chorus of dissenting conservatives during the Bush administrations strenuous defense of “vast government intrusion” in 2002.

Grow Fins on February 8, 2011 at 10:11 PM

LOL, says the raging hypocrite who certainly hated these provisions back in Bush’s day and is part of the missing “chorus of dissenting” leftards today.

I think you’ll find most conservatives are consistent on this – they were either not fond of it then and now, or are in favor of it, then and now.

It’s *your* stinky side of the aisle – as someone else pointed out earlier with regard to war protests, demands to close Gitmo, etc – who are so use to wallowing in your own hypocrisy you think you see it on everyone else – it’s just your own crap clouding your vision, as usual.

Midas on February 9, 2011 at 12:28 AM

Having reviewed the pertainent sections of the Patriot Act, I have no problem with the medical records section. If my insurance company can request those documents from my doctor at any time — since I have given up the right to shield them merely by virtue of joining an insurance plan — I have no trouble with the Government doing the same. At least with the Government, the materials are requested via a warrant, and the doctor can protest in court if he or she feels that the request and the accompanying gag order is egregious.

I trust my Government to get things right far more than I trust my insurance companies. At least the Government delivers my tax refund on time, while the insurance company, privy to all the private information it cares to mine, always exceeds the lawfully mandated time to respond. Under current federal law, they then have to deny the claim and close the file until I protest.

unclesmrgol on February 9, 2011 at 12:53 AM

A roving wiretap allows the FBI to tap ANY phone or device a suspect uses.

thphilli on February 8, 2011 at 9:16 PM

If that’s the case — rather than owning the device as it said — I’d call for some kind of threshold of evidence that it’s needed immediately and can’t wait for a warrant.

Still, I can’t quite get my outrage-o-meter up at the thought of the feds being able to tap your phone because you’ve been around terrorism suspects.

amerpundit on February 8, 2011 at 9:20 PM

Ever loan your phone to a stranger? I have.

Slowburn on February 9, 2011 at 12:56 AM

My view hasn’t changed at all. government doesn’t need this power and in is a threat to freedom and liberty. It matter not to me if its a gop president or a democratic president no one needs this power. no one.

unseen on February 8, 2011 at 10:16 PM

Perfectly stated!

If you would never trust an adversary with such authority, it ain’t a good idea to give this authority to anybody. At any time. Under any circumstance.

Badger State Dave on February 9, 2011 at 3:50 AM

I think you’ll find most conservatives are consistent on this – they were either not fond of it then and now, or are in favor of it, then and now.
Midas on February 9, 2011 at 12:28 AM

EXACTLY!!!!!

I HATED this policy when Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress came up with it, and I hate it to this day.

Back then, you may be able to claim Washington only came up with this policy because they were scared into it, and reacted emotionally.

That excuse no longer applies. The shock should have more than wore off, and now were left with a dangerous law that violates the civil liberties of Americans under the false pretense that our government is trying to protect us. It was their incompetence that led us to suffering from a successful and enormous attack to begin with, but who’s counting, eh?

NO MORE!!!! The conservative position is to refuse to reward government with more money and power when they screw up, not allow them to have more of what they don’t deserve.

Badger State Dave on February 9, 2011 at 3:59 AM

A lot of libertarians are not hawkish on national security measures. Maybe these new members are more libertarian than they are conservative.

Terrye on February 9, 2011 at 5:30 AM

My view hasn’t changed at all. government doesn’t need this power and in is a threat to freedom and liberty. It matter not to me if its a gop president or a democratic president no one needs this power. no one.

unseen on February 8, 2011 at 10:16 PM

Perfectly stated!

If you would never trust an adversary with such authority, it ain’t a good idea to give this authority to anybody. At any time. Under any circumstance.

Badger State Dave on February 9, 2011 at 3:50 AM

I disagree. There are people out there who hide in plain sight and when they do strike, such as 9/11 the same people who say they don’t want the government doing surveillance are outraged that the government did not stop the attack.

Besides, if we can stand behind some autocratic thug like Mubarak because we are worried about the Muslim Brotherho, then the threat is serious enough to track the phone calls of non citizens with questionable contacts.

Terrye on February 9, 2011 at 5:36 AM

There’s a big difference from scaling back government and preventing another Fort Hood slaying or another 9/11. If the correct provisions are written to also protect the privacy rights of all of us—ie redress of grievances,

That is part of the problem, most of the provisions never get review in open court, if they get any review at all it is in “secret” courts and anyone effected by them is forbidden from talking to anyone about the abuse of power.

I have no problem with the government “checking me out”. Admittedly, there’s a fine line here, but Conservatives supported the Patriot Act for good reasons and intent.

Rovin on February 8, 2011 at 10:21 PM

Why have a 4th amendment at all, if you have nothing to hide then the police should be able to search you any time they want right…

the_ancient on February 9, 2011 at 5:50 AM

Good.

We should strike the whole Patriot Act. Totalitarian, statist BS.

shawk on February 9, 2011 at 6:13 AM

Good.

We should strike the whole Patriot Act. Totalitarian, statist BS.

shawk on February 9, 2011 at 6:13 AM

BS. It is nothing of the kind and never was.

I am 59 years old. I can remember a time when it was actually easier for government to search people and their property than it is today. As far as that is concerned, the US managed to get through a couple of centuries before there was a Miranda Act. People have more protections today than they ever have had.

The fourth amendment protects you against unlawful search and seizure and yet the state can enter your home if there is a report of child neglect from a neighbor. The idea that until the Patriot Act came along we were all free as little birdies and could do what we liked when we liked is just a fantasy.

The state has always maintained that it has the right to keep order.

Terrye on February 9, 2011 at 6:25 AM

And besides this vote was just 7 shy of a two thirds majority, if they slow track it..it will pass. It is not as if this will actually stop it.

Terrye on February 9, 2011 at 6:29 AM

Why have a 4th amendment at all, if you have nothing to hide then the police should be able to search you any time they want right…

the_ancient on February 9, 2011 at 5:50 AM

The fourth amendment protects you against unlawful search and seizure. The state decides what is and is not lawful.

Terrye on February 9, 2011 at 6:31 AM

There’s a big difference from scaling back government and preventing another Fort Hood slaying or another 9/11.

Major problem: personal liberty and Sharia Law are totally incompatible. Check out Tony Blankley’s column today at:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0211/blankley020911.php3

oldleprechaun on February 9, 2011 at 7:12 AM

LOL, says the raging hypocrite who certainly hated these provisions back in Bush’s day and is part of the missing “chorus of dissenting” leftards today.

Midas on February 9, 2011 at 12:28 AM

Hey douchetard. Blow it out of your complacent white a*s. Read up thread a few posts and you’ll see I said:

I don’t support the PA or Obama.

Grow Fins on February 8, 2011 at 10:48 PM

Hmm. What a moron.

Grow Fins on February 9, 2011 at 7:24 AM

I disagree. There are people out there who hide in plain sight and when they do strike, such as 9/11 the same people who say they don’t want the government doing surveillance are outraged that the government did not stop the attack.

Terrye on February 9, 2011 at 5:36 AM

Explain to me again how these three provisions stopped the Ft. hood shootings, the christmas day bomber, the oregon bomber this christmas. Or that’s right they didn’t. the FT Hood shotter was easily spotted by many people yet the government took no action because of PC crap. the christmas day bomber was missed totally and only luck and the good Lord saved those 300 people. The Oregon bomber was tracked down by good police work. None of them were stopped, found or held because of these three provsions.

There are costs to freedom. Some of those costs are less security. I’m ok with that balance sheet. 9/11 was missed because of a failure to connect the dots and a warped belief system by our leaders that we were not at war. The threat was dismissed by clinton and Bush. Phone wire taps would not have stopped 9/11. Only a change in thinking of who our enemies were and their abilities would have stopped 9/11.

The only way you are totally safe is to be stuffed in a box with round the clock security. That isn’t freedom, that is prision. I will choose freedom everytime. As Patrick Henry said: Give me liberty or give me death.

unseen on February 9, 2011 at 8:33 AM

The fourth amendment protects you against unlawful search and seizure. The state decides what is and is not lawful.

Terrye on February 9, 2011 at 6:31 AM

WTF?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

the judge decides what is unreasonable or not. If the state can not make its case the judge does not issue a warrant. The state has to show probable cause not just have a whim.

The PA strikes at the entire meaning and concept of innocent until proven guilty. The PA assumes everyone is guilty.

unseen on February 9, 2011 at 8:40 AM

Grow Fins on February 9, 2011 at 7:24 AM

We’ve been reading what you said for how long now? It’s real simple Fins, what you said changes like John Kerry on steroids.

Keemo on February 9, 2011 at 8:45 AM

I disagree. There are people out there who hide in plain sight and when they do strike, such as 9/11 the same people who say they don’t want the government doing surveillance are outraged that the government did not stop the attack.

Besides, if we can stand behind some autocratic thug like Mubarak because we are worried about the Muslim Brotherho, then the threat is serious enough to track the phone calls of non citizens with questionable contacts.

Terrye on February 9, 2011 at 5:36 AM

the judge decides what is unreasonable or not. If the state can not make its case the judge does not issue a warrant. The state has to show probable cause not just have a whim.

The PA strikes at the entire meaning and concept of innocent until proven guilty. The PA assumes everyone is guilty.

unseen on February 9, 2011 at 8:40 AM

Terry, if only it were that simple. However, once theory is set aside for how it’s applied, what Unseen says is exactly how it’s done, unfortunately.

Badger State Dave on February 9, 2011 at 8:48 AM

We’ve been reading what you said for how long now? It’s real simple Fins, what you said changes like John Kerry on steroids.

Keemo on February 9, 2011 at 8:45 AM

I don’t know he sounded my like Mitt than Kerry to me….

unseen on February 9, 2011 at 8:53 AM

The fourth amendment protects you against unlawful search and seizure. The state decides what is and is not lawful.

Terrye on February 9, 2011 at 6:31 AM

What copy of the Constituion do you have.

The 4th amendment states

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I see the word unreasonable,not unlawful. if the state can just decided who they can search, and when, then there is no need for the 4th amendment which is to PREVENT the State from doing exactly what you described

the_ancient on February 9, 2011 at 8:54 AM

Boehner’s not the one who should be embarrassed. He delivered around 90% of his conference. The real failure is with White House Legislative Affairs. The President supports the bill, yet 2/3 of his party votes “no”–wazzup with dat?

osogrande on February 9, 2011 at 8:55 AM

You’ll have to forgive me, Terry.

I must have missed that day in school when we studied the Constitution, and we were taught that we must submit to every whim and fancy of the Federal government whenever some jackass has decided that they want to engage in dangerous, destructive, and violent behavior.

Nobody wants to see the terrorists succeed in another attack on America, and it’s people. NOBODY!!

But the fact is that the ONLY provision that MIGHT have prevented this from happening is the “information sharing” one between intelligence, the FBI, and immigration. That wasn’t the provision that was up for vote yesterday evening though.

Look, I am assuming we can agree that in the wake of the Tuscon shooting, that government reacting with more gun control laws is both unconstitutional and wouldn’t have prevented the act of violence against those victims, right? I can assume we can agree that some joker with a bomb in his pants is no reason to subject people to being molested by the TSA at airports, right?

Why would we allow government to stick it’s nose in our business without warrant or cause because of the terrorists? It’s irresponsible, dangerous, and not what we need.

I guess I just feel that my liberty isn’t up for negotiation. I’m not interested in allowing a growing police state to further dig around in my life to “find crime” when their proper role is to solve real crime.

When is it enough, Terry?

Badger State Dave on February 9, 2011 at 9:01 AM

In fact I remember you lot whining “if you have nothing to hide, why worry?”

Grow Fins on February 8, 2011 at 10:14 PM

I can remember when people used to protest the war(s) instead of “supporting their president”.

I can also remember when high gas prices were because of the president helping his Big Oil buddies get rich.

John Deaux on February 9, 2011 at 9:34 AM

provision giving the FBI access to, among other things, medical and business records,

of anyone

maverick muse on February 9, 2011 at 10:11 AM

That the FBI/DHS has access to EVERYONE’S medical records is problematic.

maverick muse on February 9, 2011 at 10:12 AM

… The balance between reasonable law enforcement and unreasonable behavior by law enforcement. …

Part of the problem here is we aren’t talking about just law enforcement, we’re also talking about intelligence gathering during time of war. Don’t conflate the two.

And getting a warrant is not without cost, just filling out the paperwork alone takes days. In a criminal investigation that’s an acceptable cost, but when you’re trying to spike enemy attacks, it can lead to civilian deaths, possibly hundreds or thousands of them.

LarryD on February 9, 2011 at 10:17 AM

That the FBI/DHS has access to EVERYONE’S medical records is problematic.

maverick muse on February 9, 2011 at 10:12 AM

understatment of the day. Esp since Obamacare and the desire of the federal gov to ned the cost curve….

unseen on February 9, 2011 at 10:17 AM

And getting a warrant is not without cost, just filling out the paperwork alone takes days. In a criminal investigation that’s an acceptable cost, but when you’re trying to spike enemy attacks, it can lead to civilian deaths, possibly hundreds or thousands of them.

LarryD on February 9, 2011 at 10:17 AM

yeah like they can’t streamline the process. but the freaking judge on speeddial.

unseen on February 9, 2011 at 10:18 AM

LarryD on February 9, 2011 at 10:17 AM

If the enemy is inside your compound you find the enemy. secure the compound from anymore attacks. You do not turn on your soldiers and accuse everyone of being the enemy.

unseen on February 9, 2011 at 10:20 AM

This is a good thing, and a sign that Boehner is not going to strongarm the House in an imperious Pelosi-style. This is one area on which members should vote their consciences.

Seen this: Change! Feds Are Spying on US Citizens Based on Political Beliefs

If the Bamster and his prog cabal have this power, they will use it for political gains as much as to fight terrorism. The idiot Eric Holder is in charge; -is there anything else we need to know?

slickwillie2001 on February 9, 2011 at 10:37 AM

YES. Send that scaremongering-inspired nonsense back to the McCarthyist junkpile where it belongs. It was frightening enough when it was only being used by right-wing warmongers…I can only imagine what the left-wing moonbat brigade is using it for.

That’s one tool that doesn’t need to be in the toolbox, period. You wanna catch ‘terrorists’? Knock off the PC beat-around-the-bush stuff.

Dark-Star on February 9, 2011 at 10:42 AM

Surprise: Vote to extend three UnPatriot Act provisions fails in House

FTFY. And OMG! We’re all gonna die!!!11!!!

And the bill will end up passing, of course.

You say that like it’s a good thing.

(Ron Paul was among the 26 no’s, of course.)

You say that like it’s a bad thing.

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
–Benjamin Franklin

In closing, Republicans hate the Constitution as much as Democrats do. Enjoy your self-imposed tyranny, America.

Rae on February 9, 2011 at 10:56 AM

You’ll have to give me an example of where a quantity of folks are being herded into prison camps or their privacy infringed under the PA. When it happens, I will be the first at your side to come down hard on this government along with millions who will not tolerate any abuse of power. If you really want to expend your frustration on expanded powers, we still have a President and Senate to deal with.

Talk with you tomorrow…….

Rovin on February 8, 2011 at 11:47 PM

Well this do:

The federal government is now spying on Americans based on their political beliefs.
Daily Tech reported:

The police are watching you. If you’re the wrong religion, they’ll spy on your every move. If you voice the wrong political opinions they’ll be watching you. According to Mike German, a 16-year veteran with the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigations, this is happening right in the U.S.

Mr. German has become the FBI’s worst nightmare. Fed up with the abuses of privacy he was seeing, he complain to higher authorities and was promptly fired by the FBI. Recently he became the ACLU’s Policy Counsel on National Security, Immigration and Privacy [press release]. And he’s speaking up about what he witnessed.

States Mr. German in a recent interview with Network World:

The most disturbing thing we’ve uncovered is the scope of domestic intelligence activities taking place today. Domestic spying is now being done by a host of federal agencies (FBI, DOD, DHS, DNI) as well as state and local law enforcement and even private companies. Too often this spying targets political activity and religious practices. We’ve documented intelligence activities targeting or obstructing First Amendment-protected activity in 33 states and DC.

He says that this Orwellian atmosphere could leave the U.S. a far different beast than the proud beacon of freedom it once was. He states, “The biggest threat is that the increase surveillance of political activity will create a chilling effect that will dissuade people from exercising their rights, which will cause significant harm to participatory democracy.”

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/

unseen on February 9, 2011 at 11:09 AM

Hilarious watching the lamestreamers spin this as a “Republican embarassment”

Obama has so little credibility on national security and so little trust on good governance that he had BOTH the Tea Party AND the Democrats voting against his extension of the Patriot Act yesterday. And this was a watered down version of the one the White House was pushing.

Now you can argue for or against the extension of the Patriot Act, but it is a Democrat President who is pushing it and he utterly failed to deliver his own party’s votes. How is that an embarassment to the Republicans?

DaMav on February 9, 2011 at 11:20 AM

I still say objections to the PA are overblown.

Count to 10 on February 9, 2011 at 11:34 AM

The federal government is now spying on Americans based on their [religious and] political beliefs.

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/

unseen on February 9, 2011 at 11:09 AM

How wonderful.

Rae on February 9, 2011 at 11:42 AM

I would normally consider these provisions to be essential elements of our war on terror, but as long as Obama’s thugs are in the White House, maybe I can live without them.

FalseProfit on February 8, 2011 at 9:14 PM

This should always be a criterion when considering legislation: “What will a thug in the executive branch do with this power?” Because of that reason alone, these provisions should fail. Deny Team Thug Obama all the power we possibly can.

JSGreg3 on February 9, 2011 at 11:52 AM

How wonderful.

Rae on February 9, 2011 at 11:42 AM

yes great news. but those against the PA from the first knew it would come to this. And the longer the PA is the law of the land the worse it will be.

unseen on February 9, 2011 at 11:53 AM

Part of the problem here is we aren’t talking about just law enforcement, we’re also talking about intelligence gathering during time of war. Don’t conflate the two.

And getting a warrant is not without cost, just filling out the paperwork alone takes days. In a criminal investigation that’s an acceptable cost, but when you’re trying to spike enemy attacks, it can lead to civilian deaths, possibly hundreds or thousands of them.

LarryD on February 9, 2011 at 10:17 AM

Technically we are not at war, as no officially declaration of war has been passed by congress. Further we ARE talking about police actions, the patriot act applies to DHS, FBI, DEA, ATF, and other LAW ENFORCEMENT agencies, not the CIA, NSA, etc whom are NOT authorized to operated inside the boarders of the USA.

Nor is the are these provisions being used to “stop terrorists” the FBI and esp. the DEA have tried for DECADES prior to 9/11 to get these passed and I assure you they were not wanting to use them on terrorist’s.

Further again unless your advocating the suspenstion of Posse Comitatus or in a more extreme case habeas corpus, the “time of war” argument, even if it were accurate, would be irrelevant also

the_ancient on February 9, 2011 at 12:08 PM

Obama said the following:

The White House said in a statement Tuesday that it “does not object” to extending the three Patriot Act provisions until December. However, it added, the administration “would strongly prefer” an extension until December 2013, “noting that the longer timeline provides the necessary certainty and predictability” that law enforcement agencies require while at the same time ensuring that Congress can continue to review the law’s effectiveness.

From the Washington Post, 02/08/11

See that part I highlighted in bold? Why can’t Obama and the liberals/progressives in Congress apply that same logic to the uncertain tax situation?

Woody

woodcdi on February 9, 2011 at 12:12 PM

yes great news. but those against the PA from the first knew it would come to this. And the longer the PA is the law of the land the worse it will be.

unseen on February 9, 2011 at 11:53 AM

Exactly. And those who still support the UnPatriot Act continue to have the attitude, “If you’re not doing (and thinking) anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about.”

Rae on February 9, 2011 at 12:32 PM

Many of these freshmen have Libertarian leanings, so fast tracking something they have innate qualms about wasn’t a good idea. Repackage the thing, allow debate, and all three provisions will likely pass.

pugwriter on February 9, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Not at all. you think 9/11 could have been prevented by roving wiretaps and libary searches? or lone wolf provisions?

9/11 could have been prevented by our government understanding the threat and the danger not by tapping everyone’s phone.

unseen on February 8, 2011 at 10:11 PM

Agreed. It took a while for me to come around, but I believe the Patriot Act should be shelved. There are several provisions, especially those three mentioned, that clearly violate our Constitution…

4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If you don’t like it, amend the Constitution; ignoring it is what liberals do, not self-professing conservatives.

Why is it that to every problem, people look to ignore the Constitution instead of utilizing a Constitutional approach?

Do you realize that concealed carry by American citizens would have stopped 9/11? Box-cutters, really? We have allowed ourselves to be disarmed and treated as sheep. Why should we expect the wolves to treat us as anything other than prey for the taking?

I would feel safer if every American citizen were issued temporary tasers on flights, than to trust my security to unionized government employees virtually strip searching victims passengers.

dominigan on February 9, 2011 at 1:34 PM

Technically we are not at war, as no officially declaration of war has been passed by congress….

the_ancient on February 9, 2011 at 12:08 PM

Saying that an “authorization for the use of military force” could never, under any circumstances, be considered a declaration of war is exactly the same thing as saying that the USE of military force could never, under any circumstances, be considered an ACT of war.

Please think about your talking points before you actually talk. I know this is a favorite of the “hate Bush” crowd, but until you can show me in the Constitution where it outlines the exact wording that must always be used by Congress to declare war, you’ll just have to live with the fact that the AUMF was, indeed, a declaration of war.

I’m not saying I like it, or agree with it (or don’t), just that it’s a stupid thing to say. And since you’ve probably been saying it for going on 10 years now, I think you should finally sit down and think about it, m’kay?

runawayyyy on February 9, 2011 at 2:42 PM

In fact I remember you lot whining “if you have nothing to hide, why worry?”

Grow Fins on February 8, 2011 at 10:14 PM

Yep … we were wrong about this. I don’t care who the POTUS is now, “R” or “D” … this is NOT a good policy at all.

However … let me throw back on you the fact that Harry Reid and the Dims demagogued this act to death and Dingy even said “We just killed the Patriot Act”. He may have GOP support to do exactly that now – in the Senate.

Do you think he will try to kill it?

Nope.

Why?

Because he was playing politics before.

HondaV65 on February 9, 2011 at 3:17 PM

Guess Boehner’s no Pelosi.

chickasaw42 on February 9, 2011 at 7:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 2