Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on March 07, 2006, 10:51:02 PM
-
The approval in the House of Representatives, by a vote of 280-138, sent the measure to President Bush for his signature.
The Senate last week voted 89-10 to approve the compromise package, which covers 16 provisions in the act that are set to expire on March 10.
US Senate:
109th Congress (2005-2007)
Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)
Minority Party: Democrat (44 seats)
Other Parties: Independent (1 seat)
Total Seats: 100
All but 9 of 44 Democratic Senators voted in favor.
US House:
109th (2005-2007)
Total 435
Republican (232)
Democrat (202)
Independent (1)
In the House there was a much more clear "party line":
Republicans voted in favor of the measures 214-13; among Democrats, 66 voted for the renewal, and 124 voted against it. One Independent voted against renewal.
The question is does this qualify as a bi-partisan decision to renew the Patriot Act?
-
First, we would have to agree that there is some difference between the Democrats and Republicans.
I expect that the differences can be found only at the extremes.
Both pander to the middle.
-
yup there is no fundamental difference in the political parties, it's full steam ahead to remove us from our historical rights. sadly the 215 year old experiment in self governance and personal liberty that is the American way of life is on the way out.
-
Osama 5 - USA 0
-
When it comes to giving the government more power and growing the government...
Both sides are in agreement.
lazs
-
this must be one of those threads that are like old time toilets....a hole in the ground where people squat down and deliver their most useful bits of wisdom.
-
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr333)
I just hope that when the uniforms are designed they [edited] DON'T choose the color black nor do they add any emblems in the shape of a skull.
SEC. 605. THE UNIFORMED DIVISION, UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE.... ...is hereby created and established a permanent police force, to be known as the `United States Secret Service Uniformed Division'provision[/B]
"(b)(1) Under the direction of the Director of the Secret Service, members of the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division are authorized to...
(B) make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony"
-
Originally posted by Yeager
this must be one of those threads that are like old time toilets....a hole in the ground where people squat down and deliver their most useful bits of wisdom.
lookee there now, there's another useless terd of wisdom...
-
"(b)(1) Under the direction of the Director of the Secret Service, members of the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division are authorized to...
(B) make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States
====
What do you suppose the writers of this provision visualized as a warrant?
and
Since when has law enforcement needed a warrant to make an arrest?
Hangtime, start frothing at the mouth proclaiming that american life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has ended thanks to bush cheney and haliburton, your much more entertaining when you get like that :aok
-
I do not suck air or displace water to serve as your entertainment in life, yeag.
Buy a TV or somethin.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Osama 5 - USA 0
Spot on.
-
well........that was sort of entertaining. Not enough frothy foam though :cry
-
"Not enough frothy foam though.."
Let's see if I can help.
YOUR government gets even better Yeager...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060307-5.html
-
ahhh yes the westy is here to save me from.........
Bushler?
Executive Order: Responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security with Respect to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
====
Read it, kept looking for the noose, couldn't find it. WHats the rub here westy?
-
Wheres' the rub? I'd spell it out in simple "werds" for you Yeager but you're too myopic to see em.
p.s. I'm not here to save you from anything. Folks like you deserve everything you get. But wasting MY tax contribution for such right-wing bull**** as this is the least of my problems with this...
-
[size=10]WWW.LP.ORG[/SIZE] (http://HTTP://www.lp.org)
-
spare me the dramatics westy. when you have something useful to say, Ill focus in on it. Thanks.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Originally posted by Westy
make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony"
Uh westy,
Get a clue bud. That is the exact same situation for ALL Law Enforcement in the USA under the constitution. Try reading what you cut and pasted will ya. FWIW the Secret Service already HAD powers of arrest for Federal law violations.
-
westy you are correct, I have no desire to discuss anything meaningful with you in this format. I do wish you would be more entertaining however, but apparently once I let you guys in on that little aspect of my reading pleasure you make every effort not to be entertaining anymore......:cry
-
Maverick if it is no different why does it have to be spelled out? Because the federal government and Homeland security need more nation wide secret service police powers?
What is "an offense against the United States"? What are "reasonable grounds"?
For certain though when there is a protest or staged event anywhere in the US the Prez can call it a "special event of national significance." and use the secret service directly to bust heads - without warrant, due process and without strong arming the local police.
Or are (were) we supposed to stop asking "why" or look at the governments acts with a skepticle eye? I know some have. I 've not.
-
Westy,
It is spelled out as they are making a new section of the same agency. Since it is an agency of the Federal Govt. is has to be spelled out. If powers are not specified, the agency does not have any.
-
I bet if westy looked outside the window right now there would be a world going on by without him :noid
hehe just razzin ya westy :aok
-
Maverick it's no secret I don't like the US government these days and I when I see provisions like these I can't help but see it as an ominious change and another example of more government control being put in place. Especially one that appears to me to be deliberately ambiguous, easily abusable and readily available to stifle free speach and personal liberties like none other before.
Yeager? You like YES so you can't be all that bad. :)
Later OT denizens. Browsing the OT has developed into a bad habit. Getting a bit worked up arguing an opinion or a point here and there thinking it makes a difference is really idiotic. My mind isn't going to change and niether will those of the people I'm having any discource with. Be seeing you if TOD/CT ever comes around...
-
Battleships confide in me and tell me where you are :D
-
Mav,
On the surface that doesn't make sense.
Either they already had the power and it doesn't need to be spelled out, or they never had it, and now they do?
Which is it?
As I read it, it is not so much of a new agency, but a division within an already established agency.
-
Kind of like this "offense against the United States".
And some dont understand why many of us fear a strong executive branch form of government :)
http://www.dailyrepublican.com/clintoninsulted.html
shamus
-
Oh yes the big bad evil patriot act. SHIVVERR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Stringer,
Any change in a limited organization like the Secret Service has to be spelled out., If powers are not deliniated they have no authority. Congress, through the law being enacted to mandate or allow the change is the source of their authority for police powers. The Secret Service has a limited mandate and enforcement charter granted as a segment of the Treasure Department. Their original mission was concerned with counterfieting. Presidential security was a mission added later.
-
i don't understand, the govt is now going to start arresting felons?
-
Originally posted by john9001
i don't understand, the govt is now going to start arresting felons?
Yes and it's a violation of criminals right's. How dare that big bad evil federal govt use this to fight crime and terrorism.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Yes and it's a violation of criminals right's. How dare that big bad evil federal govt use this to fight crime and terrorism.
Doesn't the government already have the agencies and abilities to do this?
-
Mav,
I understand the mechanics of it now. Thanks.
I don't agree with adding this to the Secret Service as I believe we have agencies already in place that have this ability.
-
So, is it bi-partisan or not?
That's the question.
Seems to me if ~75% of the Democratic Senators voted for it, that's pretty bi-partisan support.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
Doesn't the government already have the agencies and abilities to do this?
Well obviously not if they couldn't "connect the dots" prior to Sept 10th
-
..there's too many dots.
no, wait; that was a 'thousand points of light', 'kinder, gentler' & 'new world order'.
tuff to stay focused on just what in hell they're trying to distract.. err.. 'warn' us about.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Well obviously not if they couldn't "connect the dots" prior to Sept 10th
Bull**** Grun (typo on purpose)
So we create a new agency because the one that existed didn't do the job it is already tasked to do?
The existing government agencies had the info before Sept. 11th and blew it, plain and simple. Yet in our "no accountability" society we say "hey it's not their fault they didn't do the job they were designed to do, so let's create a whole new level of beuacracy to solve the problem, instead of holding the agency already in place and who was responsible in the first damn place" responsible.
Yeah, great frickin' plan.
You keep drinking the koolaid there Grun.
BTW, we have plenty of agencies already tasked with fighting crime. And terrorism is a crime.
And just because they didn't "connect the dots" as you say doesn't mean we need a new agency.....it could mean we need to clean up some existing ones and make sure they work as they were designed to do. It could mean they were just enough inept not to stop 9/11. Or it could mean that 9/11 would have happened irrespective of a Homeland Security Act, because at that time, we were still naive of the level of hatred that our enemy was capable of.......Crap...that's sounds too sensible.......you're right...create more layers, that usually works really, really super!!
-
Originally posted by Toad
So, is it bi-partisan or not?
That's the question.
Seems to me if ~75% of the Democratic Senators voted for it, that's pretty bi-partisan support.
That's not the relevant question to me, Toad. And I suspect it's not all that relevant to you either.
Why play their game? Bi-partisan...yeah right, different sides of the same coin is all it is.
But you already know that.
Hey, it was Bi-partisan when they sang God Bless America on the Capital steps on the evening of Sept 11th or 12th wasn't it? A fat-lot of good that did the country. Oh yeah, we got the Patriot Act out of it as well.....hey that deserves another rousing chorus of God Bless America....nah..they can save that for the next attack, and it will happen....Patriot Act or no Patriot Act.
I would like us to hold accountable the agencies that were tasked with protecting our country in the first place. Now that's a new thought....that whole accountability thing ole Dubya spouted.
-
Just tired of hearing that the PA is all Bush, all the time.
Those that don't like it need to remember it basically sailed through the Senate which is... supposedly... the more Senior and astute chamber of our legislative branch.
~75% of the Democratic Senators supported it... so can we all agree, whether we like it, are ambivalent to it or hate it, it is the product of BOTH parties?
Senators voting "no": Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Byrd (D-WV), Feingold (D-WI), Harkin (D-IA), Jeffords (I-VT), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Murray (D-WA) and Wyden (D-OR).
Note the absence of the theoretical Democratic frontrunner for the next Presidential election. Ted, the guy that put the "mass" in Massachusetts, isn't on that list either. In fact, for the most part, these are "no-name" Senators; none of the big fish swam against the tide, did they? Things that make you go "hmmmmmmmmmm".
I prefer this stuff to have definite "sunset" provisions. While I haven't been able to find much exact info on that, it does appear Specter managed the compromise by including some sunset provisions and promising to sponsor a companion bill "to push for further civil liberty protections".
Is it perfect? Nope. The end of life as we know it? Not unless the SC rolls over completely. I don't think it will.
-
Okay, Toad. I'll take the bait. The House vote was not bi-partisan. Democrats voted 2:1 against the measure.
There. Now we can open the secret passageway to the next level. ;)
Added: Oops, you posted while I was replying...
-
No, I don't think it's the end of life as we know it......as a matter of fact, it is life exactly as we know it......Existing Agency failed at task already given to it, so create another layer......same record, just flipped to the "B" side.
But Toad, why are you even playing that game? The names may change...yesterday Clinton, today Bush, tomorrow.....????, but the game is always the same. Both parties work hard TOGETHER to ensure that.
And Ted Kennedy as the bogeyman??? Maybe once, but he's long in the tooth and shown how irrelevent he has become during the latest confirmation hearings.
Hell, it makes you long for the days of Tip O'Neil and Bob Dole, at least those guys had standing.
-
"Jeffords (I-VT), Leahy (D-VT)"
At least we know what we are doing :D
Here's some voter reforms we tried .... seemed to work well.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0308-02.htm
Maine is trying some intresting reforms as well-attempting to take the private money out of politics. They offer anyone (who can get a primary ballot petition or something) 1 million in tax dollars to campaign.....
It's an option, but one you can tell the voters you took. Many 'corprately funded' politicians have quickly fallen out of style I've heard.
However I don't see Maine voteing aginst this....
But you need to at least try to reform a broken system before things go from bad to worse.