Senate moves Patriot Act toward exten...

Senate moves Patriot Act toward extension

There are 58 comments on the Athens Banner-Herald story from May 25, 2011, titled Senate moves Patriot Act toward extension. In it, Athens Banner-Herald reports that:

Squeezed against a deadline, the Senate late Wednesday moved past a standoff over a four-year extension of the anti-terror Patriot Act before part of it expire.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Athens Banner-Herald.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Since: May 10

Marina, CA

#1 May 25, 2011
What a bunch of crap!

"On the Senate floor Wednesday, Reid accused Paul of holding up the debate because of one gun amendment and risking "a retaliatory terrorist strike against the homeland."

Paul objected to the "scurrilous accusation. I've been accused of wanting to allow terrorists to have weapons to attack America."

"Do we want a land, a government without so much restraint that at any time they can come into your house?" he said. "We were very worried about that. That's why our country was founded on principles such as the Fourth Amendment."

WELL SINCE SCOTUS APPROVED THE POLICE CRASHING DOWN OUR DOORS IF THEY HEAR THAT "EVIDENCE" MIGHT BE FLUSHED, WHO NEEDS THE 4TH?
LocalBoy

Indianapolis, IN

#2 May 25, 2011
Jonny Boy Central Coast wrote:
What a bunch of crap!
"On the Senate floor Wednesday, Reid accused Paul of holding up the debate because of one gun amendment and risking "a retaliatory terrorist strike against the homeland."
Paul objected to the "scurrilous accusation. I've been accused of wanting to allow terrorists to have weapons to attack America."
"Do we want a land, a government without so much restraint that at any time they can come into your house?" he said. "We were very worried about that. That's why our country was founded on principles such as the Fourth Amendment."
WELL SINCE SCOTUS APPROVED THE POLICE CRASHING DOWN OUR DOORS IF THEY HEAR THAT "EVIDENCE" MIGHT BE FLUSHED, WHO NEEDS THE 4TH?
In all fairness, sometimes its nice to have a real conservative around to shape the debate.
Too bad we are ignorant enough to believe most of the GOP is conservative and all the left is anti capitalist.....huh, Jonny ?

My view - just another example of the fact that there is no real difference between Bush and Obama - two sides of the same Wall Street paper coin. Bush blamed our problems on the boogeyman, Obama blames Bush....what's the difference ?

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#3 May 25, 2011
Jonny Boy Central Coast wrote:
What a bunch of crap!
"On the Senate floor Wednesday, Reid accused Paul of holding up the debate because of one gun amendment and risking "a retaliatory terrorist strike against the homeland."
Paul objected to the "scurrilous accusation. I've been accused of wanting to allow terrorists to have weapons to attack America."
"Do we want a land, a government without so much restraint that at any time they can come into your house?" he said. "We were very worried about that. That's why our country was founded on principles such as the Fourth Amendment."
WELL SINCE SCOTUS APPROVED THE POLICE CRASHING DOWN OUR DOORS IF THEY HEAR THAT "EVIDENCE" MIGHT BE FLUSHED, WHO NEEDS THE 4TH?
And the 5th and 6th ammendment, all flushed down the toilet by this horrendus bill. Hope it finally gets put to rest. Always much harder to get your rights back once you've given them up.
Stand Up

Saint Louis, MO

#4 May 25, 2011
The true terrorist are the ones who vote yes to extend the unconstitutional "patriot act".

Since: May 10

Marina, CA

#5 May 25, 2011
LocalBoy wrote:
<quoted text>In all fairness, sometimes its nice to have a real conservative around to shape the debate.
Too bad we are ignorant enough to believe most of the GOP is conservative and all the left is anti capitalist.....huh, Jonny ?
My view - just another example of the fact that there is no real difference between Bush and Obama - two sides of the same Wall Street paper coin. Bush blamed our problems on the boogeyman, Obama blames Bush....what's the difference ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =DFL4L-L7wJAXX
Not much, but the tax issues, IMO

Since: May 10

Marina, CA

#6 May 25, 2011
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
And the 5th and 6th ammendment, all flushed down the toilet by this horrendus bill. Hope it finally gets put to rest. Always much harder to get your rights back once you've given them up.
Sad.

The Repugs were against some pretty simple stuff when Clinton attempted to get his anti terror bill passed. This stuff is 10 times worse.
Jagermann

Wenatchee, WA

#8 May 26, 2011
BOOO! Repeal the patriot act. These dumb@$$ politicians are America's biggest security risk. They have screwed me over 1000 times more than any terrorist ever could.
serfs up

Plano, TX

#10 May 26, 2011
Jonny Boy Central Coast wrote:
<quoted text>
Sad.
The Repugs were against some pretty simple stuff when Clinton attempted to get his anti terror bill passed. This stuff is 10 times worse.
Here is the problem. We like what our politicians do in some things and do not in other things. The two party system is rigged. The Patriot Act extension is tied to a business bill i believe. And the bill can not be removed. It seems Reid and Feinstein who agreed with it are traitors. The move to world government will not be trifled with. For without these people would not be doing what they are. You need your own tea party. Whatever you want to call it. And I will tell you that you will have the same fight getting rid of the old guard dems as the tea party is trying to get rid of the old guard repubs. America first. Always!

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#11 May 26, 2011
What a bunch of crap.

The Democrats have no more idea than the Republicans about our freedom in this modern age. It's like both parties take stupid pills on the national level.

NO "Patriot Act." It is unpatriotic! It is un-American !
Deng

Nanjing, China

#13 May 26, 2011
YEP, OFFICIALLY SUSPEND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION FOR ONE MORE YEAR AND EXTEND THE EMERGENCY RULE WHERE THE ELECTIONS ARE A MEANINGLESS PUPPET SHOW.

“Resist”

Since: Apr 09

Bryson City

#14 May 26, 2011
El presidente Zero was against the Patriot Act in 2005, calling it unconstitutional.
Well, what happened?

Zero now wants a longer extension than house repubs. A pox on both their houses.

The 4th Amendment was struck down in Indiana, overturning both the Constitution against unreasonable search and seizure and the common law Magna Carta dating to 1215.

You can thank the war on (some) drugs for this. Asset forfeiture laws benefitting the police, roadside "safety" checks (papiere bitte!), and a growing list of felonies.
Everyone is guilty, some just haven't been charged.
You can sue to get your money back but you're out the legal fees. At one time in this country, you had to be judged guilty before property was seized. That time is long gone, all for the children and in the name of security.
It's selective and capricious enforcement along with immunity from prosecution.

----------
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men.
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone?
But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
Atlas Shrugged-1957

Since: May 08

Deltona Fla

#15 May 26, 2011
Tar and Feathers wrote:
El presidente Zero was against the Patriot Act in 2005, calling it unconstitutional.
Well, what happened?
Zero now wants a longer extension than house repubs. A pox on both their houses.
The 4th Amendment was struck down in Indiana, overturning both the Constitution against unreasonable search and seizure and the common law Magna Carta dating to 1215.
You can thank the war on (some) drugs for this. Asset forfeiture laws benefitting the police, roadside "safety" checks (papiere bitte!), and a growing list of felonies.
Everyone is guilty, some just haven't been charged.
You can sue to get your money back but you're out the legal fees. At one time in this country, you had to be judged guilty before property was seized. That time is long gone, all for the children and in the name of security.
It's selective and capricious enforcement along with immunity from prosecution.
----------
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men.
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone?
But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
Atlas Shrugged-1957
Now it has to go to the Supreme Court. The Constitution is clear on the subject. It says "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." There is a difference between a police officer investigating a crime which would require a warrant, and dealing with a crime in progress (hot pursuit). The case in question sounds to me like the police overstepped their investigative powers.

“Leonardo Di Vinci died here”

Since: Nov 08

Perpignan

#16 May 26, 2011
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
And the 5th and 6th ammendment, all flushed down the toilet by this horrendus bill. Hope it finally gets put to rest. Always much harder to get your rights back once you've given them up.
So true.

Obama: We're Working on Gun Control 'Under the Radar'...liberals never give up..........they just change direction.

“Leonardo Di Vinci died here”

Since: Nov 08

Perpignan

#17 May 26, 2011
Stand Up wrote:
The true terrorist are the ones who vote yes to extend the unconstitutional "patriot act".
CHARGE: TSA Pats Down Child, Little Old Lady, Ignores Man in Arab Garb...Wow, from hopey changy to touchy feely………libs are such perverts.
short trus micro bus

United States

#18 May 26, 2011
with out the patriot act the will they have to give back all the money they stole with the patroit act

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#19 May 26, 2011
swampmudd wrote:
<quoted text>Now it has to go to the Supreme Court. The Constitution is clear on the subject. It says "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." There is a difference between a police officer investigating a crime which would require a warrant, and dealing with a crime in progress (hot pursuit). The case in question sounds to me like the police overstepped their investigative powers.
The Consitution is not clear, if you follow the majority of the Supreme Court.

As the Court threw away half of the 2nd Amendment, they have, last week, thrown away half of the 4th Amendment.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editori...

Basically, if you include the GW Bush appointment to acting president in 2000, there hardly is a US Constitution anymore.
We are now subject to Roberts-Scalia'law. Pure whim and derision.

Since: Oct 08

Harrisburg, PA

#20 May 26, 2011
While I'd like to see the entire act repealed these 3 clauses, although troublesome, are not the most horrendous.

“Resist”

Since: Apr 09

Bryson City

#21 May 26, 2011
Mr Bill, it's subject to the whims of activist judges everywhere, not only SCOTUS.
Remember how we got anchor babies?

It's been happening for a long time. Judges have become more dangerous than commie turd politicians.
Lifetime appointments?

Maybe I should pray... for an asteroid.

Since: May 08

Deltona Fla

#22 May 26, 2011
Mr_Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
The Consitution is not clear, if you follow the majority of the Supreme Court.
As the Court threw away half of the 2nd Amendment, they have, last week, thrown away half of the 4th Amendment.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editori...
Basically, if you include the GW Bush appointment to acting president in 2000, there hardly is a US Constitution anymore.
We are now subject to Roberts-Scalia'law. Pure whim and derision.
That is an interesting case. The cops of course are saying if an office saw a murder in progress through a window could he break down the door. The answer is obvious. My response is you don't send in a swat team to get a shop lifter. It is a matter of the level of the crime they believe is being committed. In the case you posted I would say the cops should have gone gotten a warrant if they thought illegal drugs were being used in an apartment. I wonder if they got an award for losing one fugitive but bringing in a few stoners instead.

“no one told me”

Since: Dec 07

Denver

#23 May 26, 2011
Jonny Boy Dodger Central Coast wrote:
What a bunch of crap!
"On the Senate floor Wednesday, Reid accused Paul of holding up the debate because of one gun amendment and risking "a retaliatory terrorist strike against the homeland."
Paul objected to the "scurrilous accusation. I've been accused of wanting to allow terrorists to have weapons to attack America."
"Do we want a land, a government without so much restraint that at any time they can come into your house?" he said. "We were very worried about that. That's why our country was founded on principles such as the Fourth Amendment."
WELL SINCE SCOTUS APPROVED THE POLICE CRASHING DOWN OUR DOORS IF THEY HEAR THAT "EVIDENCE" MIGHT BE FLUSHED, WHO NEEDS THE 4TH?
So, this is where the "dodger" is hiding.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Patriot Act Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Report: Trump says he'll fund wall by cutting r... Apr '16 tomin cali 8
News Trump proposes funding wall by cutting off remi... Apr '16 Toby 3
News Wells Fargo Bank Sued for Awareness of Violatio... (Nov '11) Nov '15 Proud Lesbian 7
News Cheney touts economy, Patriot Act during Missou... (Jan '06) Nov '15 Proud Lesbian 5
News Secret Service Involvement in Gang Stalking (Feb '13) Nov '15 SA_Victim 56
Patriot Act Survey (Oct '15) Oct '15 apgov 1
News Senate clears White House-backed trade bill (May '15) Sep '15 swedenforever 6
More from around the web