Ashcroft threatens Veto on anti-PATRIOT

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-01-30 03:13pm

CNN wrote:WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration issued a veto threat Thursday against legislation introduced in Congress that would scale back key parts of the anti-terrorism Patriot Act.

In a letter to Senate leaders, Attorney General John Ashcroft said the changes contemplated by the Security and Freedom Ensured Act, or SAFE, would "undermine our ongoing campaign to detect and prevent catastrophic terrorist attacks."

If the bill reaches President Bush's desk in its current form, Ashcroft said, "the president's senior advisers will recommend that it be vetoed."

The threat comes a week after Bush, in his State of the Union address, called for Congress to reauthorize the Patriot Act before it expires in 2005. The law, passed shortly after the 2001 terror attacks, expanded the government's wiretap and other surveillance authority, removed barriers between FBI and CIA information-sharing, and provided more tools for terror finance investigations.

Civil liberties groups and some lawmakers, including Republicans, believe the act goes too far and endangers the privacy of innocent citizens.

The SAFE Act, which has not yet had a hearing in either the House or Senate, was introduced last fall by Sens. Larry Craig, R-Idaho; Dick Durbin, D-Illinois; and other lawmakers of both parties.

In a statement at the time, Craig said the bill was a "measured" response to concerns that the Patriot Act threatens civil liberties and privacy rights.

"This legislation intends to ensure the liberties of law-abiding individuals are protected in our nation's fight against terrorism, without in any way impeding that fight," Craig said.

The bill would modify so-called "sneak and peek" search warrants that allow for delayed notification of the target of the search. In addition, warrants for roving wiretaps used to monitor a suspect's multiple cell phones would have to make sure the target was present at the site being wiretapped before information could be collected.

The legislation also would reinstate standards in place prior to passage of the Patriot Act regarding library records by forcing the FBI to show it has reason to believe the person involved is a suspected terrorist or spy. In addition, the bill would impose expiration dates on nationwide search warrants and other Patriot Act provisions, providing for congressional review.

Ashcroft, who last year embarked on a national speaking tour in support of the Patriot Act, said the legislation would "make it even more difficult to mount an effective anti-terror campaign than it was before the Patriot Act was passed."

Gee, anyone surprised?

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2004-01-30 03:15pm

If Congress gets 2/3, a persidential veto would mean nothing.

Hopefully it turns out that way.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-30 03:16pm

Not suprised one bit. President Bush said himself in the State of the Union that he was going to try to keep the PATRIOT act going.

Shaidar Haran · Post by **Shaidar Haran** » 2004-01-30 03:18pm

Ummm, Nitram, I know you're a Brit and at times don't know shit about the American system. But Aschroft can't do a damn thing to veto any thing.

As for the legislation, I certainly hope it passes. The PATRIOT Act was always on the very edge of acceptability.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-01-30 03:19pm

Shaidar Haran wrote:Ummm, Nitram, I know you're a Brit and at times don't know shit about the American system. But Aschroft can't do a damn thing to veto any thing.

Ya might wanna read it. Ashcroft delivers the threat on behalf of the President, who can veto.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-01-30 03:30pm

You might want to get the title of this topic changed. When I saw it, I thought, "What the hell, is Ashcroft declaring himself Lord Protector of the Faith, King, and Homeland already?" I wasn't expecting that until after the reelection.

I'm glad there's enough support for the SAFE Act that the Bush administration considers it a threat to them. I thought it was rather funny and a good sign that when Bush said in the SotU address, "Key provisions of the PATRIOT Act will expire next year..." people on both sides on Congress (Republican and Democrat alike) started applauding.

Shaidar Haran · Post by **Shaidar Haran** » 2004-01-30 03:38pm

SirNitram wrote:
Shaidar Haran wrote:Ummm, Nitram, I know you're a Brit and at times don't know shit about the American system. But Aschroft can't do a damn thing to veto any thing.
Ya might wanna read it. Ashcroft delivers the threat on behalf of the President, who can veto.

A yes, the dreaded "advise agains it" threat. The fact is that Aschroft didn't make much of a threat and even if he did it's still not his call.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2004-01-30 03:51pm

Shaidar Haran wrote:A yes, the dreaded "advise agains it" threat. The fact is that Aschroft didn't make much of a threat and even if he did it's still not his call.

I've always been under the impression that Bush relies heavily on his advisors to tell him what to and not to do. So Ashcroft probably has leverage.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-01-30 04:51pm

Shinova wrote:If Congress gets 2/3, a persidential veto would mean nothing.

Hopefully it turns out that way.

You realize, of course, that there's almost no way that Congress can get past a presidential veto on legislation like this. The record for how often Congress has recently overriden presidential vetoes is not good, and on a major issue like this a good number of Republicans will almost certainly vote no on the measure.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-01-30 04:57pm

quick get the FX team to remove the wires, and someone to remove <insert Moralmajority Fundies> hand from inside Bush's ass.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-01-30 04:58pm

Mind you that joke worked best with Reagan who actually moved and talked like a Disney animatronic

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-01-30 05:22pm

Shaidar Haran wrote:Ummm, Nitram, I know you're a Brit and at times don't know shit about the American system. But Aschroft can't do a damn thing to veto any thing.

What Ashcroft CAN be reminded of is that he lost to a dead man in Missouri.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-01-30 05:53pm

Well they (The Dead) have been voting for years, they might want to get someone to represent them. <JK>

of course again, I would say Reagan was the perfect president to represent the dead, either that or Al Gore, hmm wonder if Gates or the Secret Service can run for office....

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-30 06:27pm

Of course, he won't use his fucking veto power on any spending bills once, but he'll use it for this. Fucker.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-30 06:35pm

Fuck Bush and the horse he rode in on.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-01-30 09:29pm

Well, this is Ashcroft. What can you expect? He spent kilobucks covering a stupid statue with a breast showing just because he doesn't like open sexuality, not to mention how he annoints himself with oil before taking a job of public service...

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2004-01-30 10:47pm

Shaidar Haran wrote:Ummm, Nitram, I know you're a Brit and at times don't know shit about the American system. But Aschroft can't do a damn thing to veto any thing.

As for the legislation, I certainly hope it passes. The PATRIOT Act was always on the very edge of acceptability.

I thought Nitram was West Virginian?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-01-30 11:29pm

Shinova wrote:If Congress gets 2/3, a persidential veto would mean nothing.

Hopefully it turns out that way.

Not necessarily. After a bill has been vetoed, it's a long way back through Congress to override the president. Many of them just get lost in the shuffle.

Shaidar Haran · Post by **Shaidar Haran** » 2004-01-31 01:39am

Shinova wrote:
Shaidar Haran wrote:A yes, the dreaded "advise agains it" threat. The fact is that Aschroft didn't make much of a threat and even if he did it's still not his call.
I've always been under the impression that Bush relies heavily on his advisors to tell him what to and not to do. So Ashcroft probably has leverage.

He does. But they don't always agree, nor does he always take their advice. Either way, Ashcroft's threat has no bearing in and of it self. As he himself says in it, he can only advice the President.