Patriot Act Expansion Fails In The House (thehill.com) 93
An anonymous reader write: The "Anti-terrorism Information Sharing Is Strength Act" failed in the U.S. Congress on a vote held earlier this week. "Many libertarians warned of potential privacy violations if the measure went into effect," reported The Hill, "which helped prevent it from reaching the necessary two-thirds majority to pass through the fast-track process under which it was considered." The bill would've expanded the number of crimes which would trigger the expanded investigation powers, including crimes covered by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. "The Patriot Act should not be casually expanded," warned the House Liberty in a statement, arguing the bill would "permit the government to demand information on any American from any financial institution merely upon reasonable suspicion."
In a related story, a new campaign ad is criticizing Senator Russ Feingold for being the only Senator to vote against the original Patriot Act in October of 2001. Shipped to TV stations Thursday night, its narration begins "Islamic terrorists slaughtering innocents. And when Congress gave law enforcement the tools to keep Americans safe from international terror, only one senator voted no: Russ Feingold." After Friday's attack in Nice, Feingold's opponent attempted to reschedule the ads until a later date, but was unable to stop them from airing on at least three stations.
In a related story, a new campaign ad is criticizing Senator Russ Feingold for being the only Senator to vote against the original Patriot Act in October of 2001. Shipped to TV stations Thursday night, its narration begins "Islamic terrorists slaughtering innocents. And when Congress gave law enforcement the tools to keep Americans safe from international terror, only one senator voted no: Russ Feingold." After Friday's attack in Nice, Feingold's opponent attempted to reschedule the ads until a later date, but was unable to stop them from airing on at least three stations.
Re: (Score:1)
I think calling it A ISIS Act didn't help.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather not return to blaming sons for the sins of the father (or vice versa).
Can;t reinstate... (Score:2)
...what was never in place.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump will reinstate it, no worries.
You're thinking of Chuck Norris.
every now and then (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
the good guys win
Not necessarily. While the "Anti-terrorism Information Sharing Is Strength Act" has failed, the "War is Peace Act" and the "Freedom is Slavery Act" are still on the books.
Fingold (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly a Republican, since they didn't mention his party, and they never mention Republican's party when commenting on their scandals, it's a media rule.
Feingold is a democrat.
a bit of good news (Score:1)
Party breakdown (Score:5, Interesting)
From TFA, 147 Republicans and 82 Democrats voted in favor of the expansion, and 86 Republicans and 91 Democrats voted against the expansion. So 63% of voting Republicans support expanding the Patriot Act versus 47% of voting Democrats. Please keep that in mind if you're the sort of person who believes that the Republican party supports small government and civil rights.
Note also that this only failed because it was on a fast track that requires 2/3rds majority; it almost certainly will pass eventually (with a 50%+1 majority), thanks to Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
The "Democrats" you are referring to were what was colloquially known as "Dixiecrats" who were conservative by every measure.
So what? They were still democrats. That should tell you something, the democrats are still full of conservatives. And quite a few of them voted for the patriot act and all its extensions, and for war, mass incarceration, and everything else. The democrats have no monopoly on civil rights. They are in bed with the devil on most issues, this one being more notable at the moment.
And you
Re: (Score:2)
Not all of them. The conservative democrats are now called "blue dog", "third way", and the old name "Bourbon democrats". And they are still at least half the party. The civil rights and "liberalism" was only during the brief time Kennedy was president and Bobby and MLK were still alive. And it came crashing down with Humphrey's nomination. Their history, going back 150 years right up to today, is something most democrats refuse to acknowledge. The cops' billy club have their name written all over it. Deep
Re: (Score:1)
No, there are at least 82 as per the OP. And the truth is at least half are blue dogs. It's a pretty close match to their constituency. Where you get 14 from? I mean, I know where, but can't say because a moderator might take offense. And if you're posting AC so you can moderate the discussion, well, that's not very nice
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the Blue Dog democrats are gone. The passage of Obamacare pretty much doomed most of them. We had a really good guy in middle Georgia named Jim Marshall but he ended up voting for obamacare and he was doomed. That seat was historically Democrat but now a Republican sits there. They're virtually extinct.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow... you missed a chunk of American political history.
There are a number of explanations on how and why the party of Lincoln became what it is today, and how the parties basically exchanged platforms. Certainly, the switch started happening before the Civil Rights Act in 1964, but there was a widespread swing after that act where southern Democrats switched to the Republican Party.
The references to this are all over the place: http://bfy.tw/6mFZ [bfy.tw]
Re: (Score:2)
you missed a chunk of American political history.
Yeah, I guess watching it happen doesn't mean much these days. I am fully aware what happened to the GOP. What you seem to ignore is that democrat "liberalism" lasted all of about 8 years until Humphrey was nominated against a 19 to 1 popular vote for the other guy (Eugene McCarthy). I guess everybody's eyes were on the events outside the convention hall, without even understanding why it got so exciting. They made it all about the cops, instead of the crooke
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you for that link.
McCarthy - 2,914,933
Humphrey - 166,463
I like how real numbers speak so much better than I can. It's a good thing, because I'm tired of trying to argue with the obtuse. Not that the numbers will make any more difference than they did at the convention itself. Die hard democrats are die hard democrats.
Re: (Score:2)
It needed lots of republican support because so many democrats were against it.
The "Democrats" you are referring to were what was colloquially known as "Dixiecrats" who were conservative by every measure. They were assholes who simply could not join "The party of Lincoln" but were today's conservatives nonetheless.
It's a shame when people make assertions without taking the time to understand the situation, as you have done here.
Nice use of the "No true Scotsman" argument. Funny how Republicans get called out when disavowing the Tea Party...
Re: (Score:2)
You only made the republican look better.
By stating verifiable facts?
Re: (Score:1)
No, by omitting verifiable history, which includes the present. You are playing the ideology angle, they are not. This is business
Re: (Score:2)
No, by omitting verifiable history, which includes the present. You are playing the ideology angle
WTH? It is what it is. Please present the verifiable historical info in a complete manner then, or are YOU just idealistically generalizing?
Re: (Score:1)
1964, look up the voting records your damn self!
And then forward to 1968... inside the convention
And right there in the original post... 47% of democrats voted for the patriot act expansion. It speaks volumes, but falls on deaf ears..
Damn! What, are you trying to make Trump look good now? No wonder he's so popular and the voters stay home.
Re: (Score:2)
1964, look up the voting records your damn self!
>
No thanks. I didn't bring that into the discussion, you did. I'm not trying to make anyone look good or bad. I simply responded that a factual statement was made after someone didn't like it. Evidently you didn't either.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes as comparison what what happened on this vote. Be grateful enough republicans voted it down, because the democrats failed again, just like in '64. Republicans saved your ass at least twice now.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing like 1964 (Score:2)
This is like the civil rights legislation in 1964. It needed lots of republican support because so many democrats were against it.
You should study your history more. This bears zero resemblence to 1964. "Democrats" who voted against that bill switched parties shortly thereafter and those people are now solidly republicans. In fact it was that exact bill that resulted in the south voting solidly republican ever since then. This bill will have no such fallout even though in some ways perhaps it should.
I find it ironic that the party that freed the slaves is now the party whose core is now scared racist white people.
Re: (Score:1)
You should study your history more. This bears zero resemblence to 1964.
Well, that's the problem. What you know about 1964 came from your "history" books. Now, if you expect me to revise what happened to your tastes, I can only tell you, no thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
They support small government in the boardroom, not in the bedroom. They support civil rights for those who deserve them, i.e. not blacks, women, queers, drug users and blacks.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither party supports small government or individual liberty.
Re: (Score:2)
If they voted for this, then vote against them - and let them know that. Vote against them in the primaries for someone else, at the very least.
Re: (Score:1)
Half the story (Score:2)
As usual, the biased idiots only tell half the story... What the AC conveniently forgot to mention, is that after being passed by a Republican Congress it will eventually become law once a Democratic President signs it into law.
Anti-terrorism Information Sharing Is Strength Act (Score:2)
Its title reminds me... what else is strength? You do the math.
Re: (Score:2)
The A-ISIS Act? Seriously? Did they think that through at all? The jokes just write themselves.
Yeah... Tried to stop the ads... (Score:2)
"Feingold's opponent attempted to reschedule the ads until a later date, but was unable to stop them from airing on at least three stations"
Like I try to reach for the elevator's "open" button when somebody's running. Half-heartedly.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, seeing as it is Ron Johnson, it is probably due to ineptitude. He's right up there with Jeff Sessions from Alabama as being the lowest wattage senator in Congress.
Ron Johnson decided he knew something about stock markets because he has an on-line brokerage account and buys and sells stock. So he invites some whizzes from Wall Street to interrogate about Administration policy. One whiz fellow explained that brokerages were stealing a pence here and pence there by delaying buy and sell orders and coming
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You feel the same way about the ACLUs ignoring the 2nd amendment?
Re: (Score:2)
The fact the ACLU is with you two pinheads is exactly my point.
Does the first also only cover printing presses available in 1776?
Do the clear words (e.g. 'the right of the people to') not mean anything concrete in the other amendments as well?
Fuck your apologetics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't. But they also don't need to totally ignore it.
What's in a name (Score:5, Insightful)
"Anti-terrorism Information Sharing Is Strength Act"
Seriously, who names these stupid things? How about we call it one of these:
"Government Spying on its Own Citizens is Unconstitutional Act"?
"Acting Like Citizens Are All Terrorists Is Wrong Act"?
"Giving Up Your Rights Is Weakness Act"?
"Calling People Who Give Up Liberty Claiming To Be Patriots Is an Unpatriotic Act Act"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What's in a name (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Some low level legislative staffer probably just Daeshed off a name without thinking about hidden meanings.
Re: (Score:2)
Totally agree. It's just like the "People's" Republic of China. It's like they have to name it the opposite of what it is. They should call it the "We don't trust US citizens Act."
Oh please (Score:2)
The "Anti-terrorism Information Sharing Is Strength Act" is the most mis-named bill in the history of anything anywhere.
It should be named the "Paw Through Your Data And Spy On You At Will Without Any Pesky Warrants Act".
Terrorists attack democracy - democracy cancelled (Score:5, Insightful)
July 15 2016 [cnn.com]: "Terror attack kills scores in Nice, France"
July 16 2016 [punchng.com]: "France extends state of emergency"
'The declaration of a state of emergency empowers the prefect whose department is wholly or partly included in a constituency in Article 2:'
1. To prohibit the movement of people and vehicles in places and times fixed by decree;
2. To establish, by decree, areas of protection or security where the presence of individuals is regulated
3. To prohibit the stay in any part of the department to any person seeking to hinder in any way the action of the authorities
I. - The decree declaring or law extending the state of emergency may, by an express provision conferring on the administrative authorities mentioned in Article 8 the authority to order searches anywhere, including a home of day and night
II. - Minister of the Interior may take all measures to ensure the interruption of any online public communication service leading to the commission of acts of terrorism or glorifying.
So law enforcement is incompetent? (Score:2, Informative)
So what did law enforcement do with the tools to keep Americans safe from international terror they were given in 2001? The confirmed number of thwarted terrorist-related activities due to intelligence gathering is 1, a guy sending a few thousand dollars to an Islamistic organization akin to al-Qaeda.
One confirmed arrest for the complete abandonment of communication pr
Don't fret, this was just symbolic (Score:1)
Voting it down let's everyone think that hey, Congress is looking out for us. They will get it attached to an Omnibus bill at some point later this year or next and get it passed with nobody looking because you can't stop funding the government....Just look at CISA back in December.
Fuck ISIS --- I want ponies! (Score:1)
Remember kiddies: Information Sharing is Strength!
But don't get confused --- only some kinds of information... you know, the ones which don't pay our campaign budgets...
Really, this just cries for someone to make a parody mashup using MLP.