Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 12/16/2005 9:16:45 AM EDT
Link to source.

Senate rejects reauthorization of USA Patriot Act

WASHINGTON -- The Senate on Friday rejected attempts to reauthorize several provisions of the USA Patriot Act as infringing too much on Americans' privacy and liberty, dealing a huge defeat to the Bush administration and Republican leaders.

In a crucial vote early Friday, the bill's Senate supporters were not able to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a threatened filibuster by Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and their allies. The final vote was 52-47.

President Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Republicans congressional leaders had lobbied fiercely to make most of the expiring Patriot Act provisions permanent, and add new safeguards and expiration dates to the two most controversial parts: roving wiretaps and secret warrants for books, records and other items from businesses, hospitals and organizations such as libraries.

Feingold, Craig and other critics said that wasn't enough, and have called for the law to be extended in its present form so they can continue to try and add more civil liberties safeguards. But Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert have said they won't accept a short-term extension of the law.

If a compromise is not reached, the 16 Patriot Act provisions expire on Dec. 31.

Frist changed his vote at the last moment after seeing the critics would win. He decided to vote with the prevailing side so he could call for a new vote at any time. He immediately objected to an offer of a short term extension from Democrats, saying the House won't approve it and the president won't sign it.

"We have more to fear from terrorism than we do from this Patriot Act," Frist warned.

If the Patriot Act provisions expire, Republicans say they will place the blame on Democrats in next year's midterm elections. "In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without these vital tools for a single moment," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "The time for Democrats to stop standing in the way has come."

But the Patriot Act's critics got a boost from a New York Times report saying Bush authorized the National Security Agency to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of people inside the United States. Previously, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders for such investigations.

"I don't want to hear again from the attorney general or anyone on this floor that this government has shown it can be trusted to use the power we give it with restraint and care," said Feingold, the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001.

"It is time to have some checks and balances in this country," shouted Sen. Patrick Leahy, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. "We are more American for doing that."

Most of the Patriot Act -- which expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers against suspected terrorists, their associates and financiers -- was made permanent when Congress overwhelmingly passed it after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington. Making the rest of it permanent was a priority for both the Bush administration and Republican leaders on Capitol Hill before Congress adjourns for the year.

The House on Wednesday passed a House-Senate compromise bill to renew the expiring portions of the Patriot Act that supporters say added significant safeguards to the law. Its Senate supporters say that compromise is the only thing that has a chance to pass Congress before 2006.

"This is a defining moment. There are no more compromises to be made, no more extensions of time. The bill is what it is," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.

The bill's opponents say the original act was rushed into law, and Congress should take more time now to make sure the rights of innocent Americans are safeguarded before making the expiring provisions permanent.

"Those that would give up essential liberties in pursuit in a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security," said Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H. They suggested a short extension so negotiations could continue, but the Senate scrapped a Democratic-led effort to renew the USA Patriot Act for just three months before the vote began.


Furthther confirmation
Still more happiness to share.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 9:39:57 AM EDT
30+ reads and no opinions? WTF?
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 9:40:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/16/2005 9:43:19 AM EDT by pathfinder74]
Politics & Activism

No complaint here... although I find this position rather ironic if it came from anywhere withint the Democratic party.

"USA Patriot Act as infringing too much on Americans' privacy and liberty"


They have no problem infringing on other liberties, so obviously this one in particular must directly effect them in some way otherwise they probably wouldn't give a rats ass.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 9:40:55 AM EDT
Enjoy the decrease in intel gathering.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 9:41:09 AM EDT
It's not dead til it's DEAD.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 9:42:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:
30+ reads and no opinions? WTF?



I'm just weary of arguing about this.

As said in the article:

"We have more to fear from terrorism than we do from this Patriot Act," Frist warned.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 9:44:17 AM EDT

Nothing dies in Congress.

It just gets delayed until enough funds can be found to make it pass.


Link Posted: 12/16/2005 9:45:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SoCalJBT:
Enjoy the decrease in intel gathering.



Is there any evidence to support that the Patriot Act was giving the intel community some sort of advantage that they didn't previously have in terms of gathering intel?

If so I'd like to know about it. The intel community can't even get their shit together enough to share information among themselves, so I doubt the loss of the Patriot Act will have any effect that couldn't be fixed ten fold by simply grouping their efforts.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 9:46:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SoCalJBT:
Enjoy the decrease in intel gathering.



What the intel gathering on American Citizen's without warrants?

Give me a fawking break. The Patriot act is un-constitutional crap.

Link Posted: 12/16/2005 9:46:59 AM EDT
I'm sure Osama is celebrating.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 9:47:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fiend:

Originally Posted By SoCalJBT:
Enjoy the decrease in intel gathering.

What the intel gathering on American Citizen's without warrants?

Give me a fawking break. The Patriot act is un-constitutional crap.


Bush Lied!!!

Link Posted: 12/16/2005 9:48:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By imposter:
I'm sure Osama is celebrating.



I'm sure Osama is dead somewhere
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 9:48:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fiend:
<snip>

Give me a fawking break. The Patriot act is un-constitutional crap.




Care to point out which section of the PA violates which specific Constitutional provisions?

BTW, I have read every word of the PA and spent nearly a decade studying the US Constitution while working on my Masters and Ph.D.

I await your very specific replies to my simple question.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 9:50:43 AM EDT
I for one would be happy to see Americans regaining what little privacy we have left.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 9:51:50 AM EDT
You actually feel safer as a result of the Patriot Act, do I follow you all right? The border ther way it is, the ports, attempts at increasing gun control thorugh like measures. Want to make me feel safer how about National reciprocity for my CCW, how about repealing the 1968 GCA, how about actually striking terrorists supporting countries? I don't need some federal agent paid for snooping on ArfCom for possible "Domestic terrorists".

The possibility of what Hillary would do with the Patriot Act does not scare the shit out of you?
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 9:52:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/16/2005 9:52:34 AM EDT by Old_Painless]

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By fiend:
<snip>

Give me a fawking break. The Patriot act is un-constitutional crap.




Care to point out which section of the PA violates which specific Constitutional provisions?

BTW, I have read every word of the PA and spent nearly a decade studying the US Constitution while working on my Masters and Ph.D.

I await your very specific replies to my simple question.



Don't hold your breath.

All these Chicken Littles can do is repeat what the Liberals tell them.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 9:52:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fiend:

Originally Posted By SoCalJBT:
Enjoy the decrease in intel gathering.



What the intel gathering on American Citizen's without warrants?

Give me a fawking break. The Patriot act is un-constitutional crap.




+1

I for one will be happy to see it die a richly deserved death.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 9:52:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By fiend:
<snip>

Give me a fawking break. The Patriot act is un-constitutional crap.




Care to point out which section of the PA violates which specific Constitutional provisions?

BTW, I have read every word of the PA and spent nearly a decade studying the US Constitution while working on my Masters and Ph.D.

I await your very specific replies to my simple question.



Same question here. For 4 years I have been asking for specifics on which parts of the Patriot Act are so bad. Of course I have loaded the question, by insisting that they point to something thats actually in the Patriot act...
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 9:54:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By imposter:
I'm sure Osama is celebrating.



He actually on one of his tapes mentioned the Patriot Act. The context he put it in was that he was enjoying our loss of freedom to combat him. We shouldn't give up our freedoms especially to a Gov. that does not give back what was once taken.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 9:57:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:

"We have more to fear from terrorism than we do from this Patriot Act," Frist warned.




'Anyone who would sacrifice an essential liberty in exchange for a little temporary security deserves neither liberty or security' - Benjiman Franklin

I'd rather take my chances with the terrorists than take my chances with the government.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 9:58:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By Mattl:

"We have more to fear from terrorism than we do from this Patriot Act," Frist warned.




'Anyone who would sacrifice an essential liberty in exchange for a little temporary security deserves neither liberty or security' - Benjiman Franklin

I'd rather take my chances with the terrorists than take my chances with the government.



Just to clear up that is part of the article and not my opinion.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 9:59:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By fiend:
<snip>

Give me a fawking break. The Patriot act is un-constitutional crap.




Care to point out which section of the PA violates which specific Constitutional provisions?

BTW, I have read every word of the PA and spent nearly a decade studying the US Constitution while working on my Masters and Ph.D.

I await your very specific replies to my simple question.



So have others, and there are differing opinions.

I too am sick of the arguing on it though so.... I'm not going to cry tonight in bed it didn't get done. It doesn't have to be unconstitutional to be a step in the wrong direction. Show me where it made all the difference between getting someone and not getting them and maybe I'll change my mind. Otherwise..... "Oh well".
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:00:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fiend:

Originally Posted By SoCalJBT:
Enjoy the decrease in intel gathering.



What the intel gathering on American Citizen's without warrants?



The Patriot Act /iswas for people who have no understanding of intel gathering in the first place...
All of the intel on 9/11 was floating around within the intel community... and nobody was screaming for a Patriot Act then. The problem was each individual agency hoards their data and doesn't share with any other agency. It's like having a puzzle in room full of people. Everyone gets a piece but none of the people have enough sense to put the pieces together... they just sit there and look at their piece.

The intel community has its head up its ass, plain and simple.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:04:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/16/2005 10:05:52 AM EDT by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By fiend:
<snip>

Give me a fawking break. The Patriot act is un-constitutional crap.


Care to point out which section of the PA violates which specific Constitutional provisions?

BTW, I have read every word of the PA and spent nearly a decade studying the US Constitution while working on my Masters and Ph.D.

I await your very specific replies to my simple question.


1) Gov't employees keeping records of what you voluntarily check out of Gov't Libraries and sharing that info with other Gov't agencies violates the 1st, 3rd, 5th and 22nd Amendments.

2) Wiretapping and "sneak-and-peak" searches without warrants violates the 4th, 5th, 14th as well as penumbra of the 28th and 29th Amendments.

3) Citizens arrested and held without legal counsel and without any charges for years violates the 5th, 6th and 16th Amendments.

4) Gov't seizing vehicles, homes and potted plants of men with dark complexion whose names include "Achmed", "Ali", or "Mohammed" violates Article V Section 3 of the Constitution.

Shall I continue!???

Damn man, don't you know ANYTHING!?


Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:05:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Nothing dies in Congress.

It just gets delayed until enough funds can be found to make it pass.





Or until George W. can get together with his Mossad friends and plan out another attack like they did on 9/11/2001. Another attack is what we need in order to remind these unamerican bastards why they need the PATRIOT act.

Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:07:05 AM EDT
President Lincoln suspended the writ of haebus corpus and the Union survived. Go wash the sand out of your manginas.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:08:46 AM EDT
I'll hold my argument until this unwravels more...
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:08:46 AM EDT
Mixed opinion here..........
I would be willling to bet that if the democrats were in power this would be completely different.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:08:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Red_Beard:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Nothing dies in Congress.

It just gets delayed until enough funds can be found to make it pass.





Or until George W. can get together with his Mossad friends and plan out another attack like they did on 9/11/2001. Another attack is what we need in order to remind these unamerican bastards why they need the PATRIOT act.




Georgie doesn't need the PA- he has the NSA.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:10:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By imposter:
I'm sure Osama is celebrating.



He actually on one of his tapes mentioned the Patriot Act. The context he put it in was that he was enjoying our loss of freedom to combat him. We shouldn't give up our freedoms especially to a Gov. that does not give back what was once taken.



Which doesn't surprise me in the least. The terrorists hate us because of what we represent: FREEDOM! They want to rule and oppress, and (in the words of Ronald Reagan) we are "a city on a hill" that serves as an aspiration for all oppressed people. Giving the government more power to secretly gather more information on it's own citizens brings this nation closer to the dictatorial regimes we claim to oppose.

Do any of you supporters of the Patriot Act recall the Clinton Administration? Do you remember their heavy handed uses of law enforcement against American citizens? Do you remember the campaigns to label "militias" as terrorists, and anyone with a gun as a "militia member"? Do you remember how they used to call on people to report on others who owned dangerous arsenals of firearms in order to prevent violence? Bush may be using the Patriot Act against Islamic Fundalmentalists today, but the next Democrat in the White House is likely to turn the Patriot Act on you and me. Think about what the Patriot Act would mean for America if it were in the hands of Hillary Clinton.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:10:51 AM EDT
hopefully this dosen't give a sleeper cell any advantage
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:10:53 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:13:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
President Lincoln suspended the writ of haebus corpus and the Union survived. Go wash the sand out of your manginas.



And he did so for the duration of the war.

How long will the "War on Terror" go on. Will anyone even remember what freedoms we used to have by then?
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:13:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Red_Beard:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Nothing dies in Congress.

It just gets delayed until enough funds can be found to make it pass.

Or until George W. can get together with his Mossad friends and plan out another attack like they did on 9/11/2001. Another attack is what we need in order to remind these unamerican bastards why they need the PATRIOT act.


I forget, was it the Mossad who dressed as terrorists and hijacked the planes or were they the ones planted the dynamite that finally brought down the WTC?
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:15:42 AM EDT
When people on the left AND people on the right agree on something, they're usually correct.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:15:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By fiend:
<snip>

Give me a fawking break. The Patriot act is un-constitutional crap.


Care to point out which section of the PA violates which specific Constitutional provisions?

BTW, I have read every word of the PA and spent nearly a decade studying the US Constitution while working on my Masters and Ph.D.

I await your very specific replies to my simple question.


1) Gov't employees keeping records of what you voluntarily check out of Gov't Libraries and sharing that info with other Gov't agencies violates the 1st, 3rd, 5th and 22nd Amendments.Not in the PA

2) Wiretapping and "sneak-and-peak" searches without warrantsNot in the PA violates the 4th, 5th, 14th as well as penumbra of the 28th and 29th Amendments.

3) Citizens arrested and held without legal counsel and without any charges for yearsNot in the PA violates the 5th, 6th and 16th Amendments.

4) Gov't seizing vehicles, homes and potted plants of men with dark complexion whose names include "Achmed", "Ali", or "Mohammed" violates Article V Section 3 of the Constitution.Not in the PA

Shall I continue!???

Damn man, don't you know ANYTHING!?





I HOPE you were being facetious.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:17:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By fiend:
<snip>

Give me a fawking break. The Patriot act is un-constitutional crap.


Care to point out which section of the PA violates which specific Constitutional provisions?

BTW, I have read every word of the PA and spent nearly a decade studying the US Constitution while working on my Masters and Ph.D.

I await your very specific replies to my simple question.


1) Gov't employees keeping records of what you voluntarily check out of Gov't Libraries and sharing that info with other Gov't agencies violates the 1st, 3rd, 5th and 22nd Amendments.Not in the PA

2) Wiretapping and "sneak-and-peak" searches without warrantsNot in the PA violates the 4th, 5th, 14th as well as penumbra of the 28th and 29th Amendments.

3) Citizens arrested and held without legal counsel and without any charges for yearsNot in the PA violates the 5th, 6th and 16th Amendments.

4) Gov't seizing vehicles, homes and potted plants of men with dark complexion whose names include "Achmed", "Ali", or "Mohammed" violates Article V Section 3 of the Constitution.Not in the PA

Shall I continue!???

Damn man, don't you know ANYTHING!?





I HOPE you were being facetious.



Isn't number 1 covered by section 215 of the PA?
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:19:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
President Lincoln suspended the writ of haebus corpus and the Union survived. Go wash the sand out of your manginas.



The union survived, but not states rights. One of the basic principles on which our nation was founded disappeared. No big deal.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:21:34 AM EDT
I for one, will take my chances with terrorism.
In the words of Thomas Jefferson "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences of too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:22:48 AM EDT
Any one who thinks the PA is a good idea, is NOT a True American.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:23:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By Red_Beard:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Nothing dies in Congress.

It just gets delayed until enough funds can be found to make it pass.

Or until George W. can get together with his Mossad friends and plan out another attack like they did on 9/11/2001. Another attack is what we need in order to remind these unamerican bastards why they need the PATRIOT act.


I forget, was it the Mossad who dressed as terrorists and hijacked the planes or were they the ones planted the dynamite that finally brought down the WTC?




They did the explosives and tossed the unscathed copy of mohamed atta's passport out to be conveniently found hours after the crash.

Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:23:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/16/2005 10:24:57 AM EDT by ED_P]

Originally Posted By pathfinder74:


Is there any evidence to support that the Patriot Act was giving the intel community some sort of advantage that they didn't previously have in terms of gathering intel?

If so I'd like to know about it.



I bet you would, Pathfinder, or should I say "Momar Pathfinderhamad".

Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:25:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Isn't number 1 covered by section 215 of the PA?



Section 215 requires a warrant to search any papers or effects, and specifically exempts "activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

It was a nice try.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:26:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheFreepster:

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
President Lincoln suspended the writ of haebus corpus and the Union survived. Go wash the sand out of your manginas.



The union survived, but not states rights. One of the basic principles on which our nation was founded disappeared. No big deal.



Glad somebody saw that one.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:29:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By fiend:
<snip>

Give me a fawking break. The Patriot act is un-constitutional crap.


Care to point out which section of the PA violates which specific Constitutional provisions?

BTW, I have read every word of the PA and spent nearly a decade studying the US Constitution while working on my Masters and Ph.D.

I await your very specific replies to my simple question.


1) Gov't employees keeping records of what you voluntarily check out of Gov't Libraries and sharing that info with other Gov't agencies violates the 1st, 3rd, 5th and 22nd Amendments.

2) Wiretapping and "sneak-and-peak" searches without warrants violates the 4th, 5th, 14th as well as penumbra of the 28th and 29th Amendments.

3) Citizens arrested and held without legal counsel and without any charges for years violates the 5th, 6th and 16th Amendments.

4) Gov't seizing vehicles, homes and potted plants of men with dark complexion whose names include "Achmed", "Ali", or "Mohammed" violates Article V Section 3 of the Constitution.

Shall I continue!???

Damn man, don't you know ANYTHING!?





I agree that parts of it are unconsitutional, but I think that you may have a few amendments as well as a few articles and sections mixed up.

Basically the problem with parts of the PA is a 4th amendment violation since it violates the people's right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrant with "probable cause" must be issued first.

As for Article 5, Section 3 and the 28th and 29th amendments they're not there.

In case anyone is curious I'm a political science major with a pre-law emphasis. I'm finished with all but 3 hours of political science or law courses and 9 hours of upper division general requirements, which can be in just about any area and have nothing to do with law or political science. I'm NOT claiming to be an expert on Constitutional law, but I have had a few courses in this subject and that's the area that interests me the most. I don't have any books at the house to look up specific court cases, so I'm not quoting any here. I'm not going to argue about this topic either; I'm just making a single post, though I reserve the right to follow up later if desired.

Robert
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:30:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/16/2005 10:34:39 AM EDT by mousehunter]
Perhaps I am entirely mistaken, but I thought the PA authorized holding of "terrorists" without charging them pretty much indefinately. Without pulling out my pocket constitution, I thought the right to a speedy trial was in there somewhere.


In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial



Of course you could always argue that the constitutional right only apply to citizens, and that citizens who commit terrorism would fall under treason (not sure about trials which involve treason)
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:31:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By California_Kid:
When people on the left AND people on the right agree on something, they're usually correct.




I can't agree more. It is a cold day in hell when Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, and Larry Craig, R-Idaho member agree on a issue so strongly to support a filibuster against a bill.

I never thought I would ever say a good thing about Russ Feingold, but today he did the right thing for once.

We must never give up our God given right for any reason. If we do give up our rights in many ways the terrorists really have won the fight.

God Bless and Merry Christmas



Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:32:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By fiend:
<snip>

Give me a fawking break. The Patriot act is un-constitutional crap.


Care to point out which section of the PA violates which specific Constitutional provisions?

BTW, I have read every word of the PA and spent nearly a decade studying the US Constitution while working on my Masters and Ph.D.

I await your very specific replies to my simple question.


1) Gov't employees keeping records of what you voluntarily check out of Gov't Libraries and sharing that info with other Gov't agencies violates the 1st, 3rd, 5th and 22nd Amendments.Not in the PA

2) Wiretapping and "sneak-and-peak" searches without warrantsNot in the PA violates the 4th, 5th, 14th as well as penumbra of the 28th and 29th Amendments.

3) Citizens arrested and held without legal counsel and without any charges for yearsNot in the PA violates the 5th, 6th and 16th Amendments.

4) Gov't seizing vehicles, homes and potted plants of men with dark complexion whose names include "Achmed", "Ali", or "Mohammed" violates Article V Section 3 of the Constitution.Not in the PA

Shall I continue!???

Damn man, don't you know ANYTHING!?

I HOPE you were being facetious.

Who ME!????

Nah....
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:33:14 AM EDT
The controversial parts deal with roving wire taps, the ability to peak into a person's e-mail, and sneak and peak searches of the house all without a warrant.

Other than that the PA is a basically sound act and a reasonable one.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:36:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/16/2005 10:36:26 AM EDT by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By Red_Beard:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By Red_Beard:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Nothing dies in Congress.

It just gets delayed until enough funds can be found to make it pass.

Or until George W. can get together with his Mossad friends and plan out another attack like they did on 9/11/2001. Another attack is what we need in order to remind these unamerican bastards why they need the PATRIOT act.

I forget, was it the Mossad who dressed as terrorists and hijacked the planes or were they the ones planted the dynamite that finally brought down the WTC?

They did the explosives and tossed the unscathed copy of mohamed atta's passport out to be conveniently found hours after the crash.


Damn clever Jewbastards!

My only question is this - how did they infiltrate the USAF so well to use our planes to shoot down Flight 93 AND then go fire a missile into the Pentagon?
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:37:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By Red_Beard:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By Red_Beard:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Nothing dies in Congress.

It just gets delayed until enough funds can be found to make it pass.

Or until George W. can get together with his Mossad friends and plan out another attack like they did on 9/11/2001. Another attack is what we need in order to remind these unamerican bastards why they need the PATRIOT act.

I forget, was it the Mossad who dressed as terrorists and hijacked the planes or were they the ones planted the dynamite that finally brought down the WTC?

They did the explosives and tossed the unscathed copy of mohamed atta's passport out to be conveniently found hours after the crash.


Damn clever Jewbastards!

My only question is this - how did they infiltrate the USAF so well to use our planes to shoot down Flight 93 AND then go fire a missile into the Pentagon?



That was W's responsibility.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top