Question concerning the PATRIOT Act votes

Did somebody follow the votes this morning concerning the Patriot Act.

I am a little bit at a loss with what Durbin, obama, and Reid are doing. They have been going around saying they were supporting the bill and would be voting for it. They have even made floor speeches on that.

However, today, the three of them have been voting NO to a series of procedural votes. Does somebody know what it is about and why they are voting this way? Did something happen?

And what is HR 3199. I noticed Boxer was voting YES until this, and is now voting NO.

This series of votes is very confusing, and I wonder if somebody could enlighten me.

I did hear the Recording Secretary snicker at one point as she read what the vote was though. Something about an amendment to an amendment to reconsider a motion to grant cloture on an amendment to the original amendment to the bill. (Or whatever.) Even she couldn't follow it all.

Not a clue. So far I think they have voted against cloture, for the revisions to the Patriot Act that Frist proposed and that the House sent over via the conference report and are now going to vote on final passage. (But I'm not sure.)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_2.htm

Ahm, Sen. Kerry voted against cloture yesterday, but for it today, I think. (Or maybe for the cloture on the amendment. I give up.)

the same on each vote and it seemed to me anyway that the only vote that was important was the first cloture vote On Tuesday.

However, the fact that Durbin and Reid are voting NO procedural vote after procedural vote after having come out and say they were supporting the modifications is totally weird.

Right now, Feingold is reading the Constitution on the Senate floor. We'll see what happens after that.

on this in terms of calling Senators and such and getting them to not support the Patriot Act. Somebody muddied the waters so much that you need a scorecard to figure out what is going on.

I know final passage comes up later on today. They the Rethug Congress will go to LIHEAP (maybe?) and then to some other bill that will hurt average Americans a lot. Sigh!

for the bill. It seems to me that this amendment improves the bill.

Just started:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2487480&mesg_id=2487480

If Leahy, Reid, or Bingaman can figure out the bill is not good, why cant Kerry and Kennedy figure that out.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00028

There are two bills: 1 concerning the amendments (the one the article is about), and a general bill for which Reid, Durbin, Leahy,... are voting against cloture. If they can figure there is something wrong in there, I dont really see why my 2 senators cant see the same thing.

Good to see that Leahy is proposing more though.

Fiengold wants to add an amendment, but he's pretty comfortable with most of the provisions in the bill. Byrd changes position from his previous support of the original bill. What does this really mean? He voted for Alito! Not supporting the Alito filibuster was more important in my view. That's a problem for my lifetime. The bill has been fixed to some Senators satisfaction. Can it be amended in the future?

Specter is trying to dismantle the FISA law, that's more critical, IMO.

There are a lot of really important issues to deal with now, including all the recent news.

He will do what he is told to do.

I dont care what Byrd wants, because he may not know, but I trust Leahy and Feingold enough on that that I really wished Kerry and Kennedy had been with them. The bill is not what it should be and I am sure Kerry and Kennedy know that, even if it is better than it was.

I really dislike the political game Reid is playing here. At least, as much as I dont agree with my senators, I can understand what they did (though it took me some time).

1/ They voted against cloture on the amendment bill so that Feingold could have added his amendment (that they supported).

2/ Once cloture was done, they voted for Frist amendment, a small amendment to the amendment bill.

3/ They voted for the amendment bill, a bill that improves the Conference Report.

4/ Once the Amendment was voted, they voted for cloture on the amended Conference Report. What good would it be for them to vote for 3 and not 4.

5/ I expect them to vote for the Conference report tomorrow.

I disagree, but at least I can see they wanted to improve a bill that was doomed to pass.

Compare that to Reid:

1/ He voted against cloture on the amendment bill so that Feingold could have added his amendment (that they supported).

2/ Once cloture was done, they voted against Frist amendment, a small amendment to the amendment bill.

3/ They voted for the amendment bill, a bill that improves the Conference Report.

4/ Once the Amendment was voted, they voted against cloture on the amended Conference Report. What good would it be for them to vote for 3 and not 4.

5/ I expect him to vote for the Conference report tomorrow.

I understand that these are protest votes, but how do they fit together?

I don't think Specter's amendment is BS, it's dangerous. Feingold voted for Roberts, which in my book doesn't add up. I haven't been following him on this, so my comment wasn't about him.

for cloture at any point on this issue. They are just scared and playing politics! God in Heaven, WHEN will they learn it doesn't work? There is NO such thing as BIPARTISANSHIP anymore.

Do you want the whole thing repealed? You do know there are no Senators who support that, right? And very few members of the House.

no guts whatsoever. Absolutely this should be repealed. What reason should there be for continuing to violate our rights? This Bill ought NEVER to have been passed to begin with. We are NOT at war and playing that card to take our rights away is an abomination.

Maybe more. Most people do think we're at war, and most people do understand that changes in cell phone wiretapping, and other aspects of our banking laws, would be helpful in catching international criminals. Banks shouldn't have to check new accounts with watch lists? We don't want quick remedies in the event of a global computer virus attack, like Red Alert? I can see that if you don't believe there is a terrorist threat, it would be hard to find reason to support any new laws. But what's a senator supposed to do when his constituents do believe there is a threat??

And recent polls would indicate otherwise. Most people seem to be against the Patriot Act which is why the Senators reaction is a mystery to me!I believe that people who would trade security for liberty deserve neither as Ben Franklin said , or words close to that! Peace.

in the Patriot Act. Most of those who know dont want to abolish the PATRIOT Act. They know many provisions are useful for law enforcement. They want to amend it so that it preserves civil liberties.

This is what Feingold, one of the most virulent opponent of the current PATRIOT Act, wants to do.

Even the ACLU does not want to repeal it.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/24295prs20060228.html

to indicate they wouldn't support a reapeal. A repeal is just not on the table. I haven't seen anything to indicate the ACLU supports the Patriot Act.

to address their concerns. As most people, they dont want to get rid of all the provisions that are not controversial (most of them).

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/24295prs20060228.html

The ACLU and its allies will continue to demand the restoration of the rule of law to protect our fundamental freedoms. We will work until the Patriot Act is reformed to keep America both safe and free.

People don't believe we need an all out attack on terrorist networks?? And that it's a war, albeit an unconventional war?? Do you have anything to back that up?

Franklin's words are pithy, but we have a whole slew of laws to keep crooks off the streets, so apparently people do think we have to trade at least some liberty for security.

I'm not saying we should just blindly trust any government agency, but it's unreasonable to expect senators to vote the way you want if nobody else agrees with you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Poll: Info Shrinks Patriot Act Support
By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

Monday, August 29, 2005


Printable Version
Email This Article




(08-29) 19:35 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --


Fewer than half of Americans know the purpose of the Patriot Act, and the more they know about it the less they like it, according to a poll released Monday.


Fewer than half of those polled, 42 percent, are able to correctly identify the law's main purpose of enhancing surveillance procedures for federal law enforcement agencies, according to the poll conducted by the Center for Survey Research and Analysis at the University of Connecticut.


Almost two-thirds of all Americans, 64 percent, said they support the Patriot Act. But support dropped to 57 percent among those who could accurately identify the intent of the legislation.


The survey was intended to take a closer look at the high levels of public support the Patriot Act has gotten in various polls, said Samuel Best, the center's director.


"The Patriot Act has been a very visible piece of legislation," Best said. "We wanted to see if people had an understanding of the act that differentiated it from the war on terrorism generally."


"Most people don't distinguish the Patriot Act from the war on terror in general," Best said.


The House and Senate have voted to extend provisions of the Patriot Act that were set to expire at the end of this year, making many of those provisions permanent. A conference committee is scheduled to try this fall to work out differences in the House and Senate versions of the legislation.


Some provisions of the Patriot Act are supported by a solid majority, while others got far less support.


The provision that permitted federal agents:


_To use information collected in foreign intelligence investigations for domestic crime investigations was supported by 81 percent.


_To monitor names and addresses of Internet communications in criminal investigations was supported by 69 percent.


_To tap any telephone line a terrorist suspect might use rather than specifying particular phone lines was supported by 62 percent.


_To require libraries to turn over records in terrorism investigations unbeknownst to the patrons was supported by 53 percent.


_To require banks to turn over records to the government without judicial approval was supported by 43 percent.


_To conduct secret searches of Americans' homes without informing the occupants for an unspecified period of time was supported by 23 percent.


The popularity of the law seems to dwindle for measures that intrude into Americans' personal lives.


"Once people see these things hit increasingly close to home, they become more and more troubled," Best said.


Three-fourths said they think that law enforcement will frequently or occasionally use the law to investigate crimes other than terrorism. Almost as many, 72 percent, said they expect it will be used to investigate legitimate political and social groups. People are evenly divided on whether the law has prevented terrorist attacks.


While numerous polls have indicated widespread support for the Patriot Act, Best said his research suggests "people are pretty torn on where they stand."


The results are based on polling of 800 adults from Aug. 4-22 and have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.


__

First of all, this isn't a poll on whether people believe we need to fight terrorists, or whether it's correctly identified as a war.

In any event, 4 provisions have 53-83% approval. General support is 57-64%. The only 2 provisions with low approvals are the sneak & peak and bank records provisions and they did make some changes to those, although trying to keep up with what they did has been difficult.

So the people want this. After 4 years, the case against the Patriot Act didn't get made. We had a chance to rally around a "fix it" approach, but that wasn't good enough. So here we are, with a crappy law again.

The "more they know" is given in a way that highlights provisions in a negative manner. If instead the "more" were stated as sandasea just did, you would very likely see the results go the other way.

Some of the provisions in that August study were ones fixed by the changes that were passed. I also assume that future bills could change provisions - although there are no sunset provisions now.

stand . This does not necessarily mean they want to repeal it. We have no clue about where they stand between repeal it and fix it. The question was not asked.

It seems to me that Reid is awfully playing politics on this.

Yesterday, they could have gathered the votes for the only vote that really mattered (cloture motion against which BTW Kerry voted). He did not. Then he opposes amendments that would improve a bill he is voting for (even if only a little bit) and now, he is opposing something he knows will pass.

My only question is what game is he playing. I disagree with Kerry and Kennedy on this, but I am not sure whether they are playing politics or whether they are being pragmatic and think that it is better to support a little bit of amelioration than to stay with a bill that is worse. Once the first cloture vote was lost yesterday (and it could have been won with a little bit of effort by the leadership), the rest is really going thru the motions. Sure I would have prefered that they voted differently, but this was not changing anything.