Patriot Act Extension

This should be interesting to see where the parties fall out on it. The Obama administration wants to see it extended with few changes. Others want more control and to tighten the restrictions on surveillence. In the midst of the fight for Healthcare reform I wonder if it will slip under the wire un-noticed.

Days before, the Obama administration called on Congress to reauthorize the three expiring Patriot Act provisions in a letter from Ronald Weich, assistant attorney general for legislative affairs. At the same time, he expressed a cautious open mind about imposing new surveillance restrictions as part of the legislative package.

“We are aware that members of Congress may propose modifications to provide additional protection for the privacy of law abiding Americans,” Mr. Weich wrote, adding that “the administration is willing to consider such ideas, provided that they do not undermine the effectiveness of these important authorities.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/us/politics/20patriot.html?adxnnl=1&hpw=&adxnnlx=1253445811-N19y4GDJj/YF+MDnfe+O1w

TheMercenary;595939 wrote:

This should be interesting to see where the parties fall out on it. The Obama administration wants to see it extended with few changes. Others want more control and to tighten the restrictions on surveillence. In the midst of the fight for Healthcare reform I wonder if it will slip under the wire un-noticed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/us/politics/20patriot.html?adxnnl=1&hpw=&adxnnlx=1253445811-N19y4GDJj/YF+MDnfe+O1w

Given that Obama voted for the last Patriot Act extension as well as the FISA amendments, as did a significant minority of Democrats in both the House and Senate, I dont expect that there will be much modification to the current law.

There will be proposed amendments by the Feingold/Kucinich wing, but there is no widespread mandate for change here.

Redux;595967 wrote:

Given that Obama voted for the last Patriot Act extension as well as the FISA amendments, as did a significant minority of Democrats in both the House and Senate, I dont expect that there will be much modification to the current law.

There will be proposed amendments by the Feingold/Kucinich wing, but there is no widespread mandate for change here.

did you mean majority?

The vote count:

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml

House Votes to Revise, Extend Patriot Act, Angering Senators

The House voted 251 to 174 yesterday to renew the USA Patriot Act, setting up a confrontation over the revised anti-terrorism measure with a group of Democratic and Republican senators who say it would not go far enough to protect civil liberties.

The Patriot Act, approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, made it easier for the FBI to conduct secret searches, monitor telephone calls and e-mails, and obtain bank records and other personal documents in connection with terrorism investigations.

Civil liberties groups say the proposed renewal would do too little to let targeted people challenge national security letters and types of subpoenas that give the FBI substantial latitude in deciding what records -- including those from libraries -- should be surrendered.

Democrats voting yes included party Whip Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) and Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee. Harman said the bill is needed "to track communications by e-mail and Internet, including the use of Internet sites in libraries, and to prevent and disrupt plots against us."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR2005121402051.html

classicman;596065 wrote:

did you mean majority?

In the House, only a significant minority of Democrats voted for the 06 extension : 66 - for and 124 -against

In the Senate, enough Democrats voted for it to ensure that those Democratis opposed could not fillibuster at the time.

It will get more Democratic votes now because most of the new Democrats elected in 06 and 08 are moderates from Republlican-leaning distrricts and in the Senate, there are easily more than enought Democrats, along with all the Repubilcans to push it through.

I dont see an issue here. It is almost a sure thing to be extended as is, after Feingold on the Senate side and Kuchinich on the Huose side attempt to tinker with it, with little success.

TheMercenary;595939 wrote:

This should be interesting to see where the parties fall out on it. The Obama administration wants to see it extended with few changes.

I used to be okay with Obama. Now he's in my douche-bag bin with Bush and his cronies. What a bunch of fucking maroons.

Perry Winkle;596142 wrote:

I used to be okay with Obama. Now he's in my douche-bag bin with Bush and his cronies. What a bunch of fucking maroons.

The system is broken. We need Congressional Term Limits.

TheMercenary;596292 wrote:

The system is broken. We need Congressional Term Limits.

Ah. Something we agree on.

It's hard to disagree with that... I sure don't anyway.

We need limits on all of them. We need to get rid of career politicians.

It won't help a much as some of us hope as they will all end up being lobbyists or other influential positions in and around the Gov't, but it'd be a damn good start.

I'm with James Madison and those guys in Philly 225 years ago who considered and rejected term limits:
[INDENT]"a few of the members of Congress will possess superior talents; will by frequent re-elections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members of Congress, and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt they be to fall into the snares that may be laid before them." [/INDENT]

I would prefer much tougher campaign finance reform and ethics/lobbying reform.

Another downside to term limits is that it would likely make unelected Congressional staff much more powerful, unless you term limit them as well.

LIMIT EVERYONE!

lets see the progression here - 2 term congressman does a good job (4 years), then 2 term senator (12 years) Thats a good 16 years of Gov't service - plenty of time. Then go open a consulting business like you.

Oh and I am all for the strictest shit we can possibly enforce as far as campaign contributions and lobbyists et all.

classicman;596314 wrote:

We need limits on all of them. We need to get rid of career politicians.

It won't help a much as some of us hope as they will all end up being lobbyists or other influential positions in and around the Gov't, but it'd be a damn good start.

Step 1: Electrocute all lobbyists
Step 2: Bring on the term limits
Step 3: Electrocute all new lobbyists

TheMercenary;596292 wrote:

The system is broken. We need Congressional Term Limits.

You wanna fix THAT broken system, but...:headshake

classicman;596353 wrote:

LIMIT EVERYONE!

lets see the progression here - 2 term congressman does a good job (4 years), then 2 term senator (12 years) Thats a good 16 years of Gov't service - plenty of time. Then go open a consulting business like you.

Oh and I am all for the strictest shit we can possibly enforce as far as campaign contributions and lobbyists et all.

What you do with term limits is effectively obstruct/prevent citizens' fundamental choices for their elected representative by excluding one person (you cant vote for Congressman X anymore) rather than level the playing field through comprehensive campaign finance reform so that challengers have a real competitive chance against incumbents...providing real choice, not limiting choice.

The other issue for me with term limits is loosing that expertise that takes more than 10-12 years to establish. (Don't you know more about your field of expertise after 20 years as opposed to 10-12 years?)

There is probably not a guy in the Senate who knows as much about foreign affairs as Dick Lugar, Republican from Indiana, who has been around for 30 years, building that expertise. I dont want him replaced with a rookie, even if I dont always agree with Lugar. Same with the Intel Committees or Armed Services Committees, I want at least some members of those Committees who know every nook and cranny of the CIA and the Pentagon. That level of expertise takes time as does establishing credibility with colleagues as well as with the executive branch.

I dont think I would want to work in any large company/organization, public or private, where no one in that institution had more than 10-12 years of experience on the job. I just want better safeguards to make sure those long-timers dont abuse the system.

Redux;596403 wrote:

The other issue for me with term limits is loosing that expertise that takes more than 10-12 years to establish. (Don't you know more about your field of expertise after 20 years as opposed to 10-12 years?)

If it takes 10-12 years for these guys to learn their jobs, we're electing the wrong guys.

dar512;596543 wrote:

If it takes 10-12 years for these guys to learn their jobs, we're electing the wrong guys.

It absolutely takes years to develop that highest level of expertise and know all of the ins and outs of the executive branch that Congress is charged to oversee. It also takes time to build up credibility within the institution so that one can take leadership roles on important legislative issues of interest to constituents back home and the nation as a whole.

And it makes much more sense to me to keep that expertise around (if that is the choice of the voters of that district/state) rather than building that expertise from scratch every election or even every 10-12 years.

Thats not to say that I dont want to see more turnover in Congress. New blood adds new perspectives, and that is always good for any institution. But not though wholesale turnover. IMO, that is not the most productive way to run any large institution.

And I simply dont want to limit one's choice to keep their current representation, but would rather expand choices through comprehensive campaign finance reform to make it easier to challenge incumbents on a more level playing field.

Term limits in a nutshell to me:

You can work here for 10-12 years and become an expert on the most important issues to your constituents as well as foreign affairs/national security and the development of national policies affecting environment/financial services/agriculture/intergovernmental relations, etc.

Then...out you go!

Repeat and rinse.

Shawnee123;596381 wrote:

You wanna fix THAT broken system, but...:headshake

Bwaaaa haaaaa!:D:D

Redux wrote:

It absolutely takes years to develop that highest level of expertise and know all of the ins and outs of the executive branch that Congress is charged to oversee.

So can we assume you would also be in favor of eliminating Presidential term limits?

Clodfobble;596605 wrote:

So can we assume you would also be in favor of eliminating Presidential term limits?

Absolutely.

You dont take away the fundamental choice of the people to elect their chosen representatives, which is why the framers did not include term limits in the Constitution.

If the system is "broken", you dont fundamentally change what is at the very core of the system, you fix it in a manner that provides greater choice and greater safeguards to ensure that those elected don't abuse the office.

Redux;596555 wrote:

It absolutely takes years to develop that highest level of expertise and know all of the ins and outs of the executive branch that Congress is charged to oversee. It also takes time to build up credibility within the institution so that one can take leadership roles on important legislative issues of interest to constituents back home and the nation as a whole.

What expertise... who to go to, for getting around the rules and limits we want them to work within? Who owes them favors to support their pet pork projects? Which closets hold the skeletons? Which staffers really are in charge of the elected rep's office(vote)?

Seems to me that's anti-transparency. :eyebrow:

xoxoxoBruce;596683 wrote:

What expertise... who to go to, for getting around the rules and limits we want them to work within? Who owes them favors to support their pet pork projects? Which closets hold the skeletons? Which staffers really are in charge of the elected rep's office(vote)?

Seems to me that's anti-transparency. :eyebrow:

Around and around we go, huh?

From a pratical perspective, I dont want the oversight of the largest public institution in the world to be in the hands of 545 men and women, NONE OF WHOM has more than 10-12 years of experience on the job. I think that is crazy!

I want a high level of public policy experience on issues across the board and I want continuity in the legislative process.

I understand the entrenched problems that need to be addressed and I am not convinced that term limits would address them more effectively than more comprehensive campaign finance and lobbying reform with strong enforcement penalities.

From a philosphical perspective, I do not believe in limiting choice...either for the people to vote for any qualified candidate or elected offiicals being told how long then can serve.

I support Constitutional amendments that extend the rights of the people (19th amendment - women's right to vote, 26th amendment - lowering voting age to 18)

I do not support Constitutional amendments that limit or restrict any existing rights of the people.

But now I am just repeating myself.

If a term limit amendment is introduced, many here will obviously support it, I will oppose it, and you will probably be on the side with greater public support.

But it aint gonna happen anytime soon.

Redux wrote:

Absolutely.

You dont take away the fundamental choice of the people to elect their chosen representatives, which is why the framers did not include term limits in the Constitution.

If the system is "broken", you dont fundamentally change what is at the very core of the system, you fix it in a manner that provides greater choice and greater safeguards to ensure that those elected don't abuse the office.

Please detail which Presidents you felt were just beginning to get the hang of things by the end of their second term, and would have really done some great things if they'd been allowed a third. Also, were there any Presidents who were fundamentally incompetent and would never have gotten better at the job no matter how long they were in it?


You don't want Congress to be run by people with no experience, yet you have supreme faith in the average experience-less person to choose the best guy, every time?

Clodfobble;596734 wrote:

Please detail which Presidents you felt were just beginning to get the hang of things by the end of their second term, and would have really done some great things if they'd been allowed a third. Also, were there any Presidents who were fundamentally incompetent and would never have gotten better at the job no matter how long they were in it?

It is not about any individual president or member of Congress

The fundamental issue is limiting the choice of the people to elect their representatives.

And, not loosing (throwing out) valuable expertise across the policy perspective and continuity in the legislative process....what might be characterized as efficiency....simply because it might provide greater transparency.

You don't want Congress to be run by people with no experience, yet you have supreme faith in the average experience-less person to choose the best guy, every time?

I dont think i ever expressed supreme faith in the average person choose the best guy. There is certainly no guarantee that massive turn-over every election would result in better guys.

I believe the Constitution had it right the first time...with no term limits.

Those are shallow arguments against term limits.

The only way you can not support term limits is if you actually believe these men and women are working for our benefit rather than theirs. Who believes that? Show of hands please?

depmats;596878 wrote:

The only way you can not support term limits is if you actually believe these men and women are working for our benefit rather than theirs. Who believes that? Show of hands please?

False dilemma. I can think of at least two other reasons why someone might not support term limits.

lookout123;596380 wrote:

Step 1: Electrocute all lobbyists
Step 2: Bring on the term limits
Step 3: Electrocute all new lobbyists

Not all lobbyists are bad.

As far as term limits, somewhat off-topic, but I am now curious as to how that revolutionary group in the Chiapas is doing. IIRC, all public officials were supposed to have something like week-long term limits.

Idemosaka;596947 wrote:

Not all lobbyists are bad.

Yes, but why take chances?

Could you imagine what the current congressmen would do at their own accord?

Idemosaka;596960 wrote:

Could you imagine what the current congressmen would do at their own accord?

Without lobbyists? Die of whiskey withdrawl. But there's probably a downside.

Idemosaka;596960 wrote:

Could you imagine what the current congressmen would do at their own accord?

:sheep:

Go back to being lawyers.