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

Those are some pretty awful provisions. Hooray for the libertarian Right!

alwaysfiredup on February 8, 2011 at 9:06 PM

Good, they shouldn’t pass this garbage again. How are conservatives suddenly on the side of vast government intrusion into private lives all of a sudden?? When did the definition of conservative change so much?

thphilli on February 8, 2011 at 9:08 PM

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

No surprise, those are the things the Paulnuts have been shrieking about for years.

clearbluesky on February 8, 2011 at 9:09 PM

I have major concerns with some of those 3 points but I do wonder how much 9/10 has to do with this?

CWforFreedom on February 8, 2011 at 9:09 PM

Not cool. This needs to pass, and pass now.

MikeknaJ on February 8, 2011 at 9:09 PM

I see the opposition to number three.

But who cares if they’re tracking non-citizens? Or if they’re also tracking the cell phone of a guy whose home phone they’ve legally tapped?

amerpundit on February 8, 2011 at 9:09 PM

MikeknaJ on February 8, 2011 at 9:09 PM

Why?

thphilli on February 8, 2011 at 9:10 PM

Where’s the bill on defunding the FCC for arrogating regulatory control of the internet?

rrpjr on February 8, 2011 at 9:10 PM

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

Yeah, I’m not sure about this. Is there anywhere we can get more information on it?

Emily M. on February 8, 2011 at 9:11 PM

amerpundit on February 8, 2011 at 9:09 PM

So you see nothing wrong with the government being able to tap your phone because a friend of yours who is under surveillance used it once?

thphilli on February 8, 2011 at 9:12 PM

Yeah 9/11 was like almost 10 years ago, so I’m pretty sure this terrorism business is just about over, especially since we’ve caught bin Laden.

Proud Rino on February 8, 2011 at 9:12 PM

“Nine freshmen and three inaugural members of the House Tea Party Caucus cast votes against a proposed extension of three Patriot Act provisions …”

Good It is way past time to start reigning in our fascist government.

woodNfish on February 8, 2011 at 9:13 PM

So you see nothing wrong with the government being able to tap your phone because a friend of yours who is under surveillance used it once?

thphilli on February 8, 2011 at 9:12 PM

That’s not what I quoted said. It said phones “owned” by the suspect.

amerpundit on February 8, 2011 at 9:14 PM

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

I have a neighbor who was part of the design team for the navigational systems for a drone built specifically to be used to police cities and urban areas. This is big brother on steroids, and the government is using the PA as it’s vehicle for such programs. This drone can look into your bedroom.

We must not buy into all of the bullcrap here folks. Yes we must protect our people, but we also must act as the watch dog over big government since the media certainly won’t with one of it’s own sitting in the WH.

Keemo on February 8, 2011 at 9:15 PM

I don’t know if anyone saw the TP Express townhall on cspan tonight…but Alan West was great…as was everyone else. Oh, and Hatch was there!! I love it.

r keller on February 8, 2011 at 9:15 PM

I’m glad the “fast track” option was thwarted. There’s rarely a need to fast track anything through Congress, as these past 2 years have shown…

Gohawgs on February 8, 2011 at 9:15 PM

quoted = referenced

amerpundit on February 8, 2011 at 9:15 PM

amerpundit on February 8, 2011 at 9:14 PM

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

thphilli on February 8, 2011 at 9:16 PM

All those democrats who railed against the Patriot act voted FOR the continuation? or are they all gone now?

Skandia Recluse on February 8, 2011 at 9:16 PM

Every time I try and come around to my Congress Critter, Walter “Surrender” Jones (R?NC), he does this. He is fiscally responsible…but that’s about it. No excuses…I voted for him (but no real choice).

Dingbat63 on February 8, 2011 at 9:18 PM

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

So you see nothing wrong with the government being able to tap your phone because a friend of yours who is under surveillance used it once?

thphilli on February 8, 2011 at 9:12 PM

Yep, nothing wrong there. If YOUR FRIENDS are suspected terrorists, I want your life put under a microscope.

If your friends are terrorists, you are on the wrong side.

Skandia Recluse on February 8, 2011 at 9:20 PM

So non-citizens like me can be watched, and people that you stupidly gave away your citizenship to will have full protection…OK.
I think, in Europe at any rate, you’ll soon see “full” and “naturalised’ citizen clauses in various laws.

Fortunata on February 8, 2011 at 9:20 PM

I am very glad my new Critter, Schweikert, AZ-05 helped killed these AWFUL provisions. warrantless medical records?

ginaswo on February 8, 2011 at 9:21 PM

amerpundit on February 8, 2011 at 9:14 PM A roving wiretap allows the FBI to tap ANY phone or device a suspect uses. thphilli on February 8, 2011 at 9:16 PM

So? They will be very bored if they do mine.

Dingbat63 on February 8, 2011 at 9:22 PM

Hooray for the libertarian Right!

alwaysfiredup on February 8, 2011 at 9:06 PM

fixed

cableguy615 on February 8, 2011 at 9:22 PM

Proud Rino on February 8, 2011 at 9:12 PM

bin who ?? Aw your such a racist!

cableguy615 on February 8, 2011 at 9:23 PM

OK, no more “Fast Tracking”…

… I’m OK with that.

Now, on to the borders, the water in Cali, and why are the offices of the EPA and the FCC still open for business…?

Seven Percent Solution on February 8, 2011 at 9:24 PM

Mike Fitzpatrick isn’t exactly a freshman. He was in the House, and was defeated by Patrick Murphy in 2006. He beat Murphy and took the seat back in 2010.

Wethal on February 8, 2011 at 9:24 PM

Skandia Recluse on February 8, 2011 at 9:20 PM

So basically eff the constitution? THIS is conservatism????? What the hell happened to it?

thphilli on February 8, 2011 at 9:24 PM

The three provisions, incidentally, were for surveillance of non-citizens
=======================

So..um,does that include Illegals,Jihadys,and Lizard
People Voters,Chinese Spys,and… …..

canopfor on February 8, 2011 at 9:25 PM

thphilli on February 8, 2011 at 9:24 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

I have no problem with this.

SouthernGent on February 8, 2011 at 9:30 PM

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

thphilli on February 8, 2011 at 9:16 PM

thphilli:And,FBI tracking of On-Star(if equipped)GPS!!

canopfor on February 8, 2011 at 9:30 PM

canopfor on February 8, 2011 at 9:25 PM

LoL!..I am for it as long as they keep in the provision that no more than three (3) black helicopters can be over you house at one time while they are wire tapping your phone!..:)

Dire Straits on February 8, 2011 at 9:32 PM

the next time I hear about someone who screamed “Allah Hu Akbar” before blowing themselves up in a crowded mall, I’ll think of these provisions, and how they COULD have saved the lives of innocent Americans. There should be no barriers in place to prevent the defense of our way of life.

viviliberoomuori on February 8, 2011 at 9:33 PM

good I hope it fails. It’s time we roll back the power of the government. why does my government need to know what I am reading. Why does my government need to know what I am saying. if they would do their job and secure the border and interview those coming into the country us citizens would not be suspects.

good for the TEA party. Screw the big governemnt gop.

unseen on February 8, 2011 at 9:33 PM

Good, they shouldn’t pass this garbage again. How are conservatives suddenly on the side of vast government intrusion into private lives all of a sudden?? When did the definition of conservative change so much?

thphilli on February 8, 2011 at 9:08 PM

Were you alive during the Bush administration???

cjw79 on February 8, 2011 at 9:34 PM

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

viviliberoomuori on February 8, 2011 at 9:33 PM

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

unseen on February 8, 2011 at 9:35 PM

I’m as conservative as you can get, BUT we urgently need to get the government out of our pants.

Shut down the Federal government-run TSA, severely limit the scope of “Homeland Security,” and then and ONLY then lets talk about limited and carefully supervised police powers.

Citizens should not be subject to surveillance of any kind without a warrant, and “gate rape” is completely unacceptable!!!

landlines on February 8, 2011 at 9:36 PM

Were you alive during the Bush administration???

cjw79 on February 8, 2011 at 9:34 PM

yeah and i was alive in 2006 when the people rose up and slapped down the gop for this kind of crap.

unseen on February 8, 2011 at 9:36 PM

Where’s all the uproar about the TSA grabbing people’s junk from just a few months ago?

Let’s just keep lulling ourselves down the path of letting the government do anything they want to with us.

The TSA just started taking thermal pictures of women and children and grabbing guy’s private parts a few months ago – and after the dust settled? Not a peep from anyone anymore. Just walk down the cattle cage and get poked and prodded and laughed at and humiliated by some TSA employee when getting on a plane.

We need a lot more government – like the Patriot Act – in our lives.

What was that quote by Benjamin Franklin about security vs. freedom or liberty?

BowHuntingTexas on February 8, 2011 at 9:36 PM

***

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

I agree. If I have friends who are terrorism suspects, I deserve to have my conversations with them tapped–either I’m evil or too dumb not to have friends like that.

BuckeyeSam on February 8, 2011 at 9:37 PM

A bit embarrassing for Boehner

I might add that this is a good lesson for Boehner and all Republicans (especially the Beltway cronies), that the lockstep “business as usual-rubber-stamp” will not cut it anymore.

Rovin on February 8, 2011 at 9:39 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

hmmm

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.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

unseen on February 8, 2011 at 9:39 PM

good for the TEA party. Screw the big governemnt gop.

unseen on February 8, 2011 at 9:33 PM

I’m with ya on that comrade. Big Brother is using the PA to increase it’s size and power over all citizens. We already have systems in place to get the bad guys before they get us; we simply need government to allow our people to do what they do.

Keemo on February 8, 2011 at 9:39 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

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.

Firefly_76 on February 8, 2011 at 9:40 PM

I might add that this is a good lesson for Boehner and all Republicans (especially the Beltway cronies), that the lockstep “business as usual-rubber-stamp” will not cut it anymore.

Rovin on February 8, 2011 at 9:39 PM

Good post..I agree with that..:)

Dire Straits on February 8, 2011 at 9:40 PM

unseen on February 8, 2011 at 9:39 PM

Sorry, didn’t see your post!

Firefly_76 on February 8, 2011 at 9:41 PM

Huh. I must have missed all the flagrant violations of my civil rights over the past 9 years due to these egregious provisions. It’s like the Berlin Wall coming down again all over!

pmm on February 8, 2011 at 9:43 PM

canopfor on February 8, 2011 at 9:25 PM
=====================
LoL!..I am for it as long as they keep in the provision that no more than three (3) black helicopters can be over you house at one time while they are wire tapping your phone!..:)

Dire Straits on February 8, 2011 at 9:32 PM

Dire Straits:Only 3,hehe,good one!:)

canopfor on February 8, 2011 at 9:43 PM

Firefly_76 on February 8, 2011 at 9:40 PM

Which circles us right back to the imminent threat question.
There needs to be provisions, someplace, to allow the guys in the white hats to act. If it are these laws, or not, I’m no longer sure, but there has to be some leeway for law enforcement to seize the moment.

Limerick on February 8, 2011 at 9:43 PM

People….keep it KISS,

from Big Sis,

IF YOU SEE SUMPIN…..SAY SUMPIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on February 8, 2011 at 9:44 PM

unseen on February 8, 2011 at 9:35 PM

What liberty have you given up when a government agent asks you some questions? or monitors you ‘phone to see with whom you have been communicating?

It is up to the government to prove their case, and if you have not done anything, they have no case, no evidence, and can’t prove anything.

On the other hand, if ‘your friend’ has some tenuous connection to terrorists, and ‘your friend’ uses your ‘phone to call Osama Bin Laden, you are still going to make the case that the government CAN NOT investigate you? because you didn’t know ‘your friend’ was a terrorist, the government can’t even ask you any questions? can’t even verify your denial? You subscribe to the Bart Simpson defense and so the government has to leave you alone just because you say you had no involvement?

Skandia Recluse on February 8, 2011 at 9:45 PM

Sorry, didn’t see your post!

Firefly_76 on February 8, 2011 at 9:41 PM

np it needs to be repeated. I thought the house GOP had to state each bill’s consititutional authority. How can they square that circle. The provisions are clearly unconsititutional.

If they have cause go get a warrant. Yes it’s time comsuming, yes it’s a lot of work, yes it requires a judge but all of those reasons are positives and placed there for a reason to control governmental power.

unseen on February 8, 2011 at 9:46 PM

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=97099

nazo311 on February 8, 2011 at 9:47 PM

canopfor on February 8, 2011 at 9:43 PM

..:)

Dire Straits on February 8, 2011 at 9:48 PM

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

–Ben Franklin

nazo311 on February 8, 2011 at 9:49 PM

People….keep it KISS,

from Big Sis,

IF YOU SEE SUMPIN…..SAY SUMPIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on February 8, 2011 at 9:44 PM

ROFL!..That was a good one..:)

Dire Straits on February 8, 2011 at 9:49 PM

Yep, nothing wrong there. If YOUR FRIENDS are suspected terrorists, I want your life put under a microscope.

If your friends are terrorists, you are on the wrong side.

Skandia Recluse on February 8, 2011 at 9:20 PM

You could be classified as a suspected terrorist. Remember Janet Napolitano in 2009? Or was it 2010. I forget. But I don’t see any reason to fast track. Debate it and do it.

antisocial on February 8, 2011 at 9:49 PM

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.

Firefly_76 on February 8, 2011 at 9:40 PM

But, but I thought the Constitution was a living, breathing document?!?

nazo311 on February 8, 2011 at 9:50 PM

Later, friends, off to send evil gasoline flying down the highway.

Limerick on February 8, 2011 at 9:50 PM

Which circles us right back to the imminent threat question.
There needs to be provisions, someplace, to allow the guys in the white hats to act. If it are these laws, or not, I’m no longer sure, but there has to be some leeway for law enforcement to seize the moment.

Limerick on February 8, 2011 at 9:43 PM

There are procedures for ‘emergency’ warrants; in fact warrants may be issued, I understand, in an expedited manner over the phone in some cases.

I agree there has to be something to allow quick action in truly exceptional circumstances, but warrentless wiretapping, examination of medical records, and electronic surveillance of bank accounts, etc. without the person suspected ever being informed of the surveillance and eventually allowed to challenge it, is wrong and unconstitutional, IMHO.

Firefly_76 on February 8, 2011 at 9:50 PM

nazo311 on February 8, 2011 at 9:49 PM

One could argue over whether preventing a possible biochemnuclear attack that could result in unthinkable levels of casualties would qualify under “a little temporary safety”.

And whether allowing wiretaps of phones utilized by terror suspects is giving up “essential liberty”.

amerpundit on February 8, 2011 at 9:52 PM

Firefly_76 on February 8, 2011 at 9:40 PM
unseen on February 8, 2011 at 9:39 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

Skandia Recluse on February 8, 2011 at 9:45 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

One could argue over whether preventing a possible biochemnuclear attack that could result in unthinkable levels of casualties would qualify under “a little temporary safety”.

And whether allowing wiretaps of phones utilized by terror suspects is giving up “essential liberty”.

amerpundit on February 8, 2011 at 9:52 PM

What’s the problem getting a warrant from a judge then?

nazo311 on February 8, 2011 at 9:52 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

GET A WARRANT.

unseen on February 8, 2011 at 9:53 PM

Later, friends, off to send evil gasoline flying down the highway.

Limerick on February 8, 2011 at 9:50 PM

Limerick:Don’t forget to enrich your carburator,so your
dump’n more fuel down the cylinders too,haha!:)

See ya later Lim!:)

canopfor on February 8, 2011 at 9:53 PM

I haven’t had my rights breached over the past 10 years that I’m aware of either. My concern is simply that we the people watch these rulings very closely. Camera’s are going up all over the country. Now the police want to implement drones that can see into your home and listen to a conversation you’re having with your children. Obama actually set up a website for people to snitch… I’m sure you see where I’m coming from. Big Brother, brown shirts, IRS arresting us for not paying into a mandated new law. We have shit coming at us that I have never seen before, so please excuse me if I don’t trust government having such powers.

Keemo on February 8, 2011 at 9:53 PM

antisocial on February 8, 2011 at 9:49 PM

I fit the profile. Just don’t tell anyone who I really am.
You are not in law enforcement are you? It’s probably already too late, I’m on so many lists already.

Skandia Recluse on February 8, 2011 at 9:54 PM

I haven’t had my rights breached over the past 10 years that I’m aware of either. My concern is simply that we the people watch these rulings very closely. Camera’s are going up all over the country. Now the police want to implement drones that can see into your home and listen to a conversation you’re having with your children. Obama actually set up a website for people to snitch… I’m sure you see where I’m coming from. Big Brother, brown shirts, IRS arresting us for not paying into a mandated new law. We have shit coming at us that I have never seen before, so please excuse me if I don’t trust government having such powers.

Keemo on February 8, 2011 at 9:53 PM

We’re like the frog in the pot that’s slowly being boiled….

nazo311 on February 8, 2011 at 9:54 PM

They actually made a good vote. I’m surprised.

The Dean on February 8, 2011 at 9:55 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

In the circumstance you describe, it would appear that the feds have a lot of information on the suspected terrorist, his habits, and me. Presumably they can take that information to a judge and easily have a warrant issued.

Firefly_76 on February 8, 2011 at 9:55 PM

canopfor on February 8, 2011 at 9:44 PM
=============================
ROFL!..That was a good one..:)

Dire Straits on February 8, 2011 at 9:49 PM

Dire Straits:As ALT would say,eegits!:)

canopfor on February 8, 2011 at 9:55 PM

I’m no longer sure, but there has to be some leeway for law enforcement to seize the moment.

Limerick on February 8, 2011 at 9:43 PM

yeah it’s called having the judge on speed dial. don’t liek the judges ruling elect conservatives and allow them to nominate new judges. Do not change the rules of the game because the rules are “hard work” work harder to make the rules work for you.

unseen on February 8, 2011 at 9:55 PM

OMG, what happened to the Rubber Stamp Congress? I’m glad they voted this way. Now they’ll have some input and I hope they’re willing to exercise that input.

Govern, Republicans, Govern.

bflat879 on February 8, 2011 at 9:56 PM

unseen on February 8, 2011 at 9:52 PM

You are driving down the road, and you are already ‘under surveillance’ by local traffic patrol officers.

Does that make the country a police state?

Skandia Recluse on February 8, 2011 at 9:57 PM

I’ve smoked more than alot. Could not get it. Did not do anything. I suppose it is just a state of mind, as to how you’ll absord the drug.. Didn’t do a damn thing. I will not dismiss the people who claim that has some exquisic properties. they believe so.

betsyz on February 8, 2011 at 9:58 PM

I will possibly agree to items #1 and #2, if the provisions are re-defined very narrowly (and passed by 2/3rds of Congress), and possibly a severely-limited #3 after HSA picks off all the low hanging fruit, which they show no ability to do, and start private security run profiling at Airports and elsewhere. Oh, also restrict immigration, and temporary and permanent visas by Muslims, to zero. And seal the borders. And deport the illegals already here. And cut the budget to $1T. And outlaw the Brotherhood from all political participation or negotiation. And make the Bush tax cuts permanent. And repeal Oturd care. Then I’ll think about it.

AZCON on February 8, 2011 at 9:58 PM

What’s the problem getting a warrant from a judge then?

nazo311 on February 8, 2011 at 9:52 PM

What’s the problem with going through a warrant procurement process for what may be a three-minute phone call? I think the suspects may catch on if you ask them to keep talking while you get the judge on the ringer.

amerpundit on February 8, 2011 at 9:58 PM

You are driving down the road, and you are already ‘under surveillance’ by local traffic patrol officers.

Does that make the country a police state?

Skandia Recluse on February 8, 2011 at 9:57 PM

It is if they can pull you over and search your car just for having Tea party bumper sticker displayed.

nazo311 on February 8, 2011 at 9:59 PM

You are driving down the road, and you are already ‘under surveillance’ by local traffic patrol officers.

Does that make the country a police state?

Skandia Recluse on February 8, 2011 at 9:57 PM

If those local police pull me over because a terrorit was driving next to me and they thought I was sending smoke signals to him in my rearview mirror but they didn’t see me yeah it does…

unseen on February 8, 2011 at 9:59 PM

It’s a good thing our borders are secured…

… Oh, wait!

Seven Percent Solution on February 8, 2011 at 10:00 PM

This country is already a police state, our liberty today is a farcical mirage.

Inanemergencydial on February 8, 2011 at 10:00 PM

What’s the problem with going through a warrant procurement process for what may be a three-minute phone call? I think the suspects may catch on if you ask them to keep talking while you get the judge on the ringer.

amerpundit on February 8, 2011 at 9:58 PM

Is that before or after the FBI finishes his coffee and doughnuts?

unseen on February 8, 2011 at 10:00 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

ah, Provisions the Govt. has constiutionally been able to do for decades in Criminal matters, would be barred to do against Terrorist.

Direlect in Duty

jp on February 8, 2011 at 10:01 PM

Under the Patriot Act, it is HARDER, for the FBI to get your Library Records than it is under existing law for cops to get same records in a Criminal case.

amazing how distorted the fear mongering on this issue has taken us.

jp on February 8, 2011 at 10:03 PM

roving wiretaps of multiple phones owned by a suspect

That provision is essential for national security. Terrorists are actively plotting to destroy a major US city with highly destructive technologies.

toliver on February 8, 2011 at 10:04 PM

This is a victory for the Tea Party and a defeat for the old school George Bush GOP which, unfortunately, Boehner represents. This is not how you fight terrorism. You don’t fight it by making the government bigger and giving it more powers. Because as we have learned, it just used those powers to keep on eye on everyone but the young islamic men going in and out of the US. You fight it by not allowing those people in the country in the first place.

keep the change on February 8, 2011 at 10:04 PM

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

Chubbs65 on February 8, 2011 at 10:01 PM

Yeah….uh huh.

I think you vastly overestimate how much the election was about supporting Ron Paul/Reason Magazine principles.

The same people who don’t want their entitlements touched aren’t going to vote a Republican out of office because he’s too big security in stopping terrorism.

Is that before or after the FBI finishes his coffee and doughnuts?

unseen on February 8, 2011 at 10:00 PM

Cute stereotype but largely irrelevant to reality.

amerpundit on February 8, 2011 at 10:06 PM

Skandia Recluse on February 8, 2011 at 9:45 PM

Firefly_76 on February 8, 2011 at 9:50 PM

You both make great points, I mean really great points. The “balance” has to be achieved by means that do not invade our privacy, while at the same time protect us to the greatest extent. I almost wish there was a way for the government to profile me for a one time disqualification from being a threat to this country, so they could concentrate on the very small list of “questionable suspects”. I guess it comes down to how much you trust your government to destroy the Intel when they’ve achieved this.

Rovin on February 8, 2011 at 10:08 PM

For me it’s simple… I ask myself if I have seen abuse of power with this administration. I must answer that with a yes. This bothers the crap out of me because I’m watching a man and a political party govern against the will of it’s people. Since we have a free election system, it makes no sense to me that these people would do this unless they have something truly evil in mind. Not saying they do or that I know some dark secret. I simply have a really bad feeling about how this is all going to come down over the next 12 months. The cash flow to unions is going to end at some point and the riots and violence will begin. I’ve sat back and watched this administration back the unions 100% in every example.

This vote today was a temporary set back for those who wish to see the PA continue forward. These provisions will pass soon enough. 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

This is a victory for the Tea Party and a defeat for the old school George Bush GOP which, unfortunately, Boehner represents.

keep the change on February 8, 2011 at 10:04 PM

You’re kidding, right? Just 8 of 26 “No” votes were newcomers. The rest were leftovers from years past. Michele Bachmann, Kristi Noem, Allen West….all yes votes.

And meanwhile the legislation will easily pass through normal channels.

amerpundit on February 8, 2011 at 10:09 PM

Cute stereotype but largely irrelevant to reality.

amerpundit on February 8, 2011 at 10:06 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

Good, they shouldn’t pass this garbage again. How are conservatives suddenly on the side of vast government intrusion into private lives all of a sudden?? When did the definition of conservative change so much?

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

<blockquoteThe 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.

Firefly_76 on February 8, 2011 at 9:40 PM

Bolded the part to help your comprehension.

Perhaps we should cite some Founding Father history in this area, which makes the Patriot Act like like a walk in the park in comparison.

jp on February 8, 2011 at 10:12 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

What do you mean by “understanding the threat”? I mean, specifically?

amerpundit on February 8, 2011 at 10:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2