House votes to extend Patriot Act

[Plain Old Jane]

The long and largely unargued past of the patriot act is one I've spent weeks researching during english and philosophy classes. From the rediculous rights it allows gov't agencies in seeking out terrorism, to its conception in 1998, to the fact that nobody of import actually read it while it was going through the House. Republican's used to get their panties in a wad over states rights, whilst this act supercedes municipality when the state wishes. (granted, the practical use is library records, but the implications are scary with what they CAN do.) But recently, the house spent some well used time culling and re-examining the articles of the Patriot act.

The provisions largely an issue are a few portions which extend four year sunset clauses into indefinite ones, and making the four year provisions into ten year ones.

Another bill was also passed that allows the FBI to subpeona records without a judge or grand jury. Which theres no real problem with, but there are already precendants which allow this sort of thing.

Also new in effect are mandatory sentences for terroristic acts. 20 years for rail attack, 30 if any nuclear material is used, and LIFE if anyone is killed in the attack, with definite possibility of death penalty.

One new amendment calls for the FBI director to approve any requests for records, either information or medical. Which is a prudent choice considering the implications if there are no checks and balances so to speak.

"Periodically revisiting the Patriot Act is a good thing," said Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Massachusetts. "The Patriot Act was an effort to answer the most difficult question a democracy faces: How much freedom are we willing to give up to feel safe?"

[Mike]

Now, I agree with you about the dangers of the Patriot act, but there's a few points I have to make.

Republican's used to get their panties in a wad over states rights

Don't use Republicans and Conservatives interchangably.
Republicans themselves have never been entirely consistant with states rights... dating back to the definition of the parties themselves. Lincoln was a Republican and committed the biggest atrocity to states' rights, since the Federalist papers were written. It still stands as the greatest negligence to states' rights in American history. Today's DC-Republicans (neoconservatives) are not all that interested in states' rights. They are just as much federalists as any Democrat or Liberal.

The Patriot act still stands as something that Anti-Republicans and Classical Conservatives challenge as something that gives Government too much control... However, something that I think the Anti-Republicans miss is that it has yet to even be applied, and most of them are just updates to prior laws that give government essentially the same power. I've yet to meet somebody credible who's life was even changed by it. By credible, I mean, somebody who is not some random bloke posting on a Anti-Bush message board. And it's really not that scary ... the biggest violation of our basic civil rights was with Kelo... I think that it's much more dangerous that the government can seize your house and property at will, without just compensation, and without offering any legitimate public service...

I was worried about the Patriot Act at first, as a Libertarian and Classical Conservative ... but I have yet to see it applied, and this is while working at the Worcester County Court House and the lower courts of Massachusetts for the last three years.

[Plain Old Jane]

well I mean the classical republican from some time after this country was founded, they were still knee deep in fear over the monarchy and state power

yea, I used to be extremely worried, but with some updates and cullings in this version, i do feel a little bit better about it.