Senate Votes to Extend Provisions of the Patriot Act

Here's one for you. And I thought the liberals hated the Patriot Act:



WASHINGTON – The Senate on Tuesday voted to extend for 90 days the legal life of three post-Sept. 11 terrorism-fighting measures, including the use of roving wiretaps, that are set to expire at the end of the month.


The short-term extension gives lawmakers a chance to review the measures that critics from both the right and left say are unconstitutional infringements on personal liberties.
The Senate voted 86-12 a day after the House agreed to extend the three provisions, including two from the 2001 USA Patriot Act, until Dec. 8. The two chambers must now agree on a common approach. With Congress in recess next week, there is pressure to reach a compromise this week.


The measures include the authority to initiate roving wiretaps on multiple electronic devices and the authority to obtain court-approved access to business records considered relevant to terrorist investigations. The third "lone wolf" provision, part of a 2004 law, permits secret intelligence surveillance of non-U.S. individuals not known to be linked to a specific terrorist activity.


Without the three provisions, said Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., "our law enforcement and intelligence agencies would lack important tools to protect this nation."


But from the inception of the Patriot Act in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks, the increased surveillance powers have been subject to scrutiny and criticism from both conservatives and liberals who say they violate free speech rights and rights against unwarranted searches and seizures.


"We knew we were in a very emotional state" after the attacks, said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. He said the provisions give the government access to sensitive personal records such as medical, library and gun records, and "can lead to government fishing expeditions that target, unfortunately, innocent Americans."


Freshman Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky agreed that "in the fear after 9/11 we didn't debate these things fully."


Paul sent out a letter to his Senate colleagues earlier in the day, saying that in the wake of the attacks the government "greatly expanded its own power, ignoring obvious answers in favor of the permanent expansion of a police state."


Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy, D-Vt., has introduced legislation, scheduled to be taken up by his committee on Thursday, that would extend the three provisions through 2013 while tightening up oversight. Feinstein has also called for extension through 2013 while several Republicans have proposed that they be made permanent.


"The bill I hope we will consider before May 27 would give the intelligence community the certainty it needs by extending these expiring authorities while also strengthening congressional and judicial oversight," Leahy said.


The White House, in a statement last week regarding the House bill, said it "does not object" to the 10-month extension proposed by the House but would prefer continuing the authority through the end of 2012 because "longer duration provides the necessary certainty and predictability that our nation's intelligence and law enforcement agencies require."

 

Libs were against it when W put it into place ( a short 6 weeks after 9/11...gee hoe that happen? ).....but if Dems want it, their opinions change, now they support it. I dont mean folks on this board, I mean the public in general. All they see is a D or an R and thier opinion is made.

I find the act discusting myself..it took me a while to learn that tho.

 

Personaly I think that if it stops one attrocity from taking place then it is worth the inconvenience but then we have to ballance out if we place more value on the lives of your citizens or on the privecy of your phone calls!

 

I was against the Patriot Act when it was enacted and I'm against it now. I just think it's interesting that Democrats are using it to their benefit when they were so adamantly opposed to it in the beginning. Benjamin Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" and that still holds true today.

 

The Patriot Act shows the problem of enacting 'temporary' legislation giving the government extraordinary powers to keep us 'safe'. Like tax cuts, those kinds of powers are rarely allowed to expire.

 

Fortunatly for Mr Franklin he was not dealing with people who could use mobile phones or emails to organise attacks on the citizens of the USA, nor did they even have the Telegram but I bet when the Civil war was on they had no compuction in trying to read the mail or what went over the wires and I doubt if there was a outcry about it either LOL
It is all well and good to give the patriotic sppeaches but when it comes down to it I guarentee you that your Inteligence services have been monetering the airwaves for a rather long time looking out for key words and phreases LOL