Senate Proposes Patriot Act Extension

geekylinuxkid writes "Senate leaders reached a bipartisan agreement Wednesday night to extend expiring and controversial provisions of the Patriot Act for six months. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Republican from Tennessee, announced the agreement from the Senate floor, ending an impasse over the measure." From the article: "Last week, the House voted 251-174 to renew the 16 provisions after striking a compromise that altered some of them. The provisions were set to expire at year's end if not renewed. Controversial measures include those allowing the FBI -- with a court order -- to obtain secret warrants for business, library, medical and other records, and to get a wiretap on every phone a suspect uses." More commentary on the BBC. We reported on last week's failure of the original renewal.

Comments

Someone please explain

[Anonymous Coward]

As has been pointed out before... who needs an extension to the PATRIOT act, when the President can just issue an executive order?

Re:Someone please explain

[Council]

who needs an extension to the PATRIOT act, when the President can just issue an executive order?

Moderation: +1 Funny

What we really need is a mod for "Funny, but it's that sort of awkward laugh, where you're not sure if you should be crying instead."

It will be extended only to a certain extent

[digitaldc]

Frist makes me laugh, he says "This is a win for America's safety and security, and I'm pleased the Senate was able to rise above the partisan politics being played by the minority to do the right thing."

And we know the majority would NEVER play partisan politics to get what they want.

Extending our Freedom to be Safe? Or Spyed on?

[TheUncleD]

Last week, the House voted 251-174 to renew the 16 provisions after striking a compromise that altered some of them.

Fortunately, this doesn't guarantee it will pass. One of the provisions I agree with is the one that eliminates barriers to intelligence agents and prosecutors sharing information. This act has already infringed on many peoples freedom, but has also opened up the government to be more scrutinous in the case of certain suspicious entities. Has it overall had a positive or negative effect? Since we as the general public cannot easily gauge what information they have collected entirely as a result, who can say for sure.

For those interested in the provisions the House passed, this site explains most of them in plain english LA Times Provisions

This site has the latest in how the patriot act currently stands.

...a win for America's safety and security...

[TubeSteak]

I'm going to quote an old post [slashdot.org] from the "DMCA Abuse Widespread" [slashdot.org] article:

Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying . They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.

To extend that idea a bit further: If we lose liberties present in The Constitution, The Amendments and The Bill of Rights, have the terrorists won?

I think that goes directly back to what Benjamin Franklin was saying when he talked about people who give up freedom for security deserve neither.

The PATRIOT Act works

[PaxTech]

No terrorist attacks since 9/11. How can anyone say it doesn't do its job?

Next step: Instituting a federal Bear Patrol to stop these constant bear attacks. I also hear there's a little girl who has a rock that keeps tigers away, this should also be investigated.

Re:The PATRIOT Act works

[terrymr]

I haven't been attacked by monkeys since i started carrying an umbrella everywhere i go.

Re:Who's the Liar?

[SeattleGameboy]

Do you read?

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

Did you even read my post? FISA (the "Act" this order is referring to) explicitly grants permission to the President to authorize warrantless search for Foreign Governments and its Agents.

However, it EXPLICITLY FORBIDS the government from doing the same search on US Citizens without warrants.

Here, you can read it yourself.

Did you even READ this executive order? It does EXACTLY what I said it does. It says that since FISA gives me this power to search foreign powers, I am going to delegate this power to my Attorney General and other top cabinet officals.

WHERE does it say that even though FISA prohibits it, you are authorized to search US citizens without a warrant? Do you see ANY sentence here that says you should ignore FISA (in fact, EVERY paragraph starts with "Pursuant to FISA...")?

Why is this so hard to understand. I get that Rush and Fox News is distorting it, but gosh darn it, it is right here in black and white. ANY cursory reading of this order and FISA would lead any sane mind to fact that Clinton is going WITH the FISA while Bush is going AGAINST it.