Daniel writes “Our friends at Secrecy News report that Sen John Kyl of AZ and nine other senators have introduced S. 2476, a bill to repeal the “sunset clause” S. 224 of the USA PATRIOT Act.
Here is the text of Sec. 224:
“SEC. 224. SUNSET.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (b), this title and the amendments made by this title (other than sections 203(a), 203(c), 205, 208, 210, 211, 213, 216, 219, 221, and 222,
and the amendments made by those sections) shall cease to have effect on December 31, 2005.
(b) EXCEPTION.—With respect to any particular foreign intelligence investigation that began before the date on which the provisions referred to in subsection (a) cease to have effect, or with
respect to any particular offense or potential offense that began or occurred before the date on which such provisions cease to have effect, such provisions shall continue in effect.”
It seems like the country could have a better debate on this bill if it were considered AFTER the election. There would still be plenty of time to act prior to Dec 2005.”
I have to agree
“ seems like the country could have a better debate on this bill if it were considered AFTER the election. There would still be plenty of time to act prior to Dec 2005.”
It does seem to me that this would best be taken up after the election. Depending on who wins we may not need it, or we may be prohibited from using it by executive order.
I have not ruminated enough to decide if it should sunset as inteneded, or if it should be extended to a certain time, or perhaps indefinitely.
However who is the occupant of the White House at the time will have a great deal of influence on the issue, so I do think it should occur after that Tuesday in November.
Re:I have to agree
It seems to me that the same argument could be applied to making the sunset clauses a campaign issue. By doing so it would remove the power to repeal the clauses from the executive and place it in the hands of the voters. Besides, which, the whole problem with USAPA is that it was passed in such a rush that there was insufficient debate (none at all, actually). It is to the advantage of USAPA proponents to create such a tight deadline that people won’t be able to examine the issues to any depth.
Plato
Daniel – Do you see any prescience
in Plato’s words taken here from The Republic, and our country’s “insatiable desire of this (democracy) and the neglect of other things…”? Those “other things” being liberty in light of 9/11? No trick question here, just interested in your thoughts.
What good?
Freedom, I replied; which, as they tell you in a democracy, is the glory of the State –and that therefore in a democracy alone will the freeman of nature deign to dwell.
Yes; the saying is in everybody’s mouth.
I was going to observe, that the insatiable desire of this and the neglect of other things introduces the change in democracy, which occasions a demand for tyranny.
How so?
When a democracy which is thirsting for freedom has evil cupbearers presiding over the feast, and has drunk too deeply of the strong wine of freedom, then, unless her rulers are very amenable and give a plentiful draught, she calls them to account and punishes them, and says that they are cursed oligarchs.
Re:Plato (correction)
Those “other things” being national security at the expense of liberty in light of 9/11?