Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
I am all for getting the bad guys, but this latest rewrite is starting to bother me. The old saying. "Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely" is starting to come to mind. So is the days of Hitler. Take a legitimate crisis (9/11) make good changes to protect, etc against it happening again and then continue to use the scare tactics to create a further "perceived" crisis and expand the federal powers in the name of protecting us. In the end it appears that the original good act Patriot I is being bastardized for no other inteded purpose than to give the gov't further power it doesn't need.
Senate Panel OKs Patriot Act Revisions
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
STORIES
•Groups Seek Easing of Patriot Act•Former GOP Rep.: Limit Secret Searches•Pols: Secrecy Impedes Patriot Act Renewal•Gonzales Defends Renewal of Patriot Act •Liberals, Conservatives Fight Patriot Act•Bush Urges Renewal of Patriot Act•Controversial Patriot Act Provisions •Patriot Act Faces Scrutiny in 2005•'Patriot Act II' Irks Civil Libertarians
WASHINGTON — The FBI would get expanded powers to subpoena records without the approval of a judge or grand jury in terrorism investigations under Patriot Act (search) revisions approved Tuesday by the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Some senators who voted 11-4 to move the bill forward said they would push for limits on the new powers the measure would grant to law enforcement agencies.
"This bill must be amended on the floor to protect national security while protecting Constitutional rights," said Sen. Barbara Mikulski (search), D-Md.
Ranking Democrat Jay Rockefeller (search), D-W.Va., supported the bill overall but said he would push for limits that would allow such administrative subpoenas "only if immediacy dictates."
Rockefeller and other committee members, such as Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., also are concerned that the bill would grant powers to federal law enforcement agencies that could be used in criminal inquiries rather than intelligence-gathering ones.
Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said the bill places new checks and balances on the powers it would grant, such as new procedures that would allow people to challenge such administrative orders. He called the Patriot Act "a vital tool in the war on terror" and lauded the Democrats who voted for it in spite of misgivings.
Portions of the Patriot Act — signed into law six weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks — are set to expire at the end of 2005. The bill would renew and expand the act.
The bill also must be considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Feinstein and other Democrats planned to again offer amendments.
Overall, Rockefeller said, the committee gave a nod to most of the Patriot Act in its first few years fighting the nation's new enemies.
"We concluded that these tools have helped keep America safe ... and should be made permanent," Rockefeller said in a statement.
Still, civil libertarians panned the bill and the closed-door meetings in which it was written.
"When lawmakers seek to rewrite our Fourth Amendment rights, they should at least have the gumption to do so in public," said Lisa Graves, the ACLU's senior counsel for legislative strategy. "Americans have a reasonable expectation that their federal government will not gather records about their health, their wealth and the transactions of their daily life without probable cause of a crime and without a court order."
Senate Panel OKs Patriot Act Revisions
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
STORIES
•Groups Seek Easing of Patriot Act•Former GOP Rep.: Limit Secret Searches•Pols: Secrecy Impedes Patriot Act Renewal•Gonzales Defends Renewal of Patriot Act •Liberals, Conservatives Fight Patriot Act•Bush Urges Renewal of Patriot Act•Controversial Patriot Act Provisions •Patriot Act Faces Scrutiny in 2005•'Patriot Act II' Irks Civil Libertarians
WASHINGTON — The FBI would get expanded powers to subpoena records without the approval of a judge or grand jury in terrorism investigations under Patriot Act (search) revisions approved Tuesday by the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Some senators who voted 11-4 to move the bill forward said they would push for limits on the new powers the measure would grant to law enforcement agencies.
"This bill must be amended on the floor to protect national security while protecting Constitutional rights," said Sen. Barbara Mikulski (search), D-Md.
Ranking Democrat Jay Rockefeller (search), D-W.Va., supported the bill overall but said he would push for limits that would allow such administrative subpoenas "only if immediacy dictates."
Rockefeller and other committee members, such as Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., also are concerned that the bill would grant powers to federal law enforcement agencies that could be used in criminal inquiries rather than intelligence-gathering ones.
Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said the bill places new checks and balances on the powers it would grant, such as new procedures that would allow people to challenge such administrative orders. He called the Patriot Act "a vital tool in the war on terror" and lauded the Democrats who voted for it in spite of misgivings.
Portions of the Patriot Act — signed into law six weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks — are set to expire at the end of 2005. The bill would renew and expand the act.
The bill also must be considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Feinstein and other Democrats planned to again offer amendments.
Overall, Rockefeller said, the committee gave a nod to most of the Patriot Act in its first few years fighting the nation's new enemies.
"We concluded that these tools have helped keep America safe ... and should be made permanent," Rockefeller said in a statement.
Still, civil libertarians panned the bill and the closed-door meetings in which it was written.
"When lawmakers seek to rewrite our Fourth Amendment rights, they should at least have the gumption to do so in public," said Lisa Graves, the ACLU's senior counsel for legislative strategy. "Americans have a reasonable expectation that their federal government will not gather records about their health, their wealth and the transactions of their daily life without probable cause of a crime and without a court order."
