After all the whining & b*tching, look what the Dems did

[peejay 327]

Senate votes to extend Patriot Act

Democrats retreat from adding new privacy protections to the law

The Associated Press

updated 6:32 p.m. CT, Wed., Feb. 24, 2010

WASHINGTON - The Senate voted Wednesday to extend for a year key provisions of the nation's counterterrorism surveillance law that are scheduled to expire at the end of the month.

In agreeing to pass the bill, Senate Democrats retreated from adding new privacy protections to the USA Patriot Act.

The Senate approved the bill on a voice vote with no debate. It now goes to the House.

Three important sections of the Patriot Act are to expire at the end of this month.

One authorizes court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones. A second allows court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations. A third permits surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen suspected of engaging in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.

Supporters say extending the law enables authorities to keep important tools in the fight against terrorism. It would also give Democrats some cover from Republican criticism that the Obama administration is soft on terrorism. Republicans have criticized the administration for trying terrorist suspects in civilians courts, rather than military ones, and for trying to close the military-run prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Some Democrats, however, had to forfeit new privacy protections they had sought for the law.

The Judiciary Committee bill would have restricted FBI information demands known as national security letters and made it easier to challenge gag orders imposed on Americans whose records are seized. Library records would have received extra protections. Congress would have closely scrutinized FBI use of the law to prevent abuses. Dissemination of surveillance results would have been restricted and after a time, unneeded records would have been destroyed.

"I would have preferred to add oversight and judicial review improvements to any extension of expiring provisions in the USA Patriot Act," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "But I understand some Republican senators objected."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35571223/ns/po...cs-capitol_hill

[Pooky 3,874]

Senate votes to extend Patriot Act

Democrats retreat from adding new privacy protections to the law

The Associated Press

updated 6:32 p.m. CT, Wed., Feb. 24, 2010

WASHINGTON - The Senate voted Wednesday to extend for a year key provisions of the nation's counterterrorism surveillance law that are scheduled to expire at the end of the month.

In agreeing to pass the bill, Senate Democrats retreated from adding new privacy protections to the USA Patriot Act.

The Senate approved the bill on a voice vote with no debate. It now goes to the House.

Three important sections of the Patriot Act are to expire at the end of this month.

One authorizes court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones. A second allows court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations. A third permits surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen suspected of engaging in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.

Supporters say extending the law enables authorities to keep important tools in the fight against terrorism. It would also give Democrats some cover from Republican criticism that the Obama administration is soft on terrorism. Republicans have criticized the administration for trying terrorist suspects in civilians courts, rather than military ones, and for trying to close the military-run prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Some Democrats, however, had to forfeit new privacy protections they had sought for the law.

The Judiciary Committee bill would have restricted FBI information demands known as national security letters and made it easier to challenge gag orders imposed on Americans whose records are seized. Library records would have received extra protections. Congress would have closely scrutinized FBI use of the law to prevent abuses. Dissemination of surveillance results would have been restricted and after a time, unneeded records would have been destroyed.

"I would have preferred to add oversight and judicial review improvements to any extension of expiring provisions in the USA Patriot Act," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "But I understand some Republican senators objected."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35571223/ns/po...cs-capitol_hill

Well, Senator Leahy, you didn't bother even trying to debate your side, so why try blaming someone else, just to be partisan? Get off your Green Mountain butt and do something about it.

Meh

Edited February 25, 2010 by Pooky

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Well, Senator Leahy, you didn't bother even trying to debate your side, so why try blaming someone else, just to be partisan? Get off your Green Mountain butt and do something about it.

Meh

When it came up for a vote, the decisions and discussions had been had. That is all Sen. Leahy was saying, he would have preferred something a little different, this was ultimately the outcome. He didn't launch into a diatribe about the Republicans.

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

kinda makes me wonder about all that complaining they were doing before.

[Danno 1,228]

IT'S LIKE BUSH NEVER LEFT WASHINGTON.

Only now the Left love his policies.

This is so funny.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

kinda makes me wonder about all that complaining they were doing before.

Could it be....SATAN!...er...politics?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

IT'S LIKE BUSH NEVER LEFT WASHINGTON.

Only now the Left love his policies.

This is so funny.

Careful what you say Danno "they" are watching you!

[Pooky 3,874]

Careful what you say Danno "they" are watching you!

Hey, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Hey, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you

I think they heard that!

[Ali G. 37]

One authorizes court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones. A second allows court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations. A third permits surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen suspected of engaging in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.

Why would anyone have an issue with that? I actually think it does not go far enough, considering they need court approval.

People fail to grasp that there is no second chance with terror. One nuke or chemical weapon and we are talking hundreds of thousands of deaths minimum. Watch the Day after Disaster on the history channel.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Booyah

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

Careful what you say Danno "they" are watching you!

maybe "they" will invite danno for a beer at the white house.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

They just did this so the Republicans will vote for health care.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Of course they extended it, who thought that they wouldn't?

Surely the key is to not give the government these kinds of powers to begin with.

People fail to grasp that there is no second chance with terror.

Take some anti anxiety meds.

[Ali G. 37]

Take some anti anxiety meds.

So you'd rather risk a suitcase nuke over having a court grant permission for authorities to wiretap someone? Actually you probably would, rather than admit you are wrong.

Luckily such death wishes are not a problem in Aus or the UK. Over there they nod and thank you for your opinion, but continue to do what is best for the people. Hence, being able to catch people before they try anything. You do realize that had the person on Delta not had a glitch, hundreds of people would now have been dead. As I said, good luck trying to get a warrant to investigate someone like that, when there is often little to no notice of such attack. Therefore, even seconds count. Anyways, I agree with you. Those guys have such an easy job that it's not a big deal to take a few more key tools away from them.

In Summary:

Court approved Wiretapping = Bad

Court approved monitoring= Bad

Water Boarding = Bad

Interrogation = Bad

Any ideas on how exactly they should go about proactively catching someone?

Edited February 25, 2010 by Booyah

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Water boarding=good.