U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
July 22, 2005 08:00 AM UTC

Colorado Reps. Go Party-Line on Patriot Act

  • 35 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

The House and Senate passed different measures on the Patriot Act yesterday. From The Washington Post:

Within hours of a second attack on the London transit system, lawmakers in the House and Senate pushed ahead yesterday with starkly different bills to extend the controversial USA Patriot Act anti-terrorism law.

Votes by the House and a Senate committee set the stage for sharp debate on Capitol Hill over how far Congress should go in limiting the powers given the government by the law, which was passed six weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks but has since come under fire from civil liberties advocates and some elected officials.

After a day-long debate, the House voted 257 to 171 last night to extend or make permanent the most controversial provisions of the law while adding a handful of new restrictions on the FBI. Forty-three Democrats joined 214 Republicans in approving the Patriot renewal bill. Other proposals for sharper limits were rejected.

How did Colorado’s Congressional members vote? Party-line.

YES

Bob Beauprez (R-7)
Joel Hefley (R-5)
Marilyn Musgrave (R-4)
Tom Tancredo (R-6)

NO

Diana DeGette (D-1)
John Salazar (D-3)
Mark Udall (D-2)

Now we move on to the Senate action on the Patriot Act. From The Washington Post…

Earlier in the day, however, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved a bill that goes significantly further in modifying the Patriot Act. It would require greater oversight of the Justice Department and would place new restrictions on secret searches and surveillance in terrorism probes.

The dueling proposals are part of a long debate over the act, which includes 16 provisions set to expire at the end of this year unless renewed by Congress. President Bush and his aides have repeatedly urged lawmakers to make the law permanent, arguing that its provisions have helped deter terrorist strikes.

…The Senate Judiciary Committee measure, sponsored by Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), was a setback for the administration and was portrayed by Senate aides as the version likely to pass muster on the floor.

A separate bill approved by the Senate intelligence committee in June would make all provisions of the law permanent and give the FBI additional power to issue subpoenas without the approval of a judge. Whatever the Senate passes will have to be reconciled with the House version approved yesterday.

Although 16 provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire, most of the congressional debate in recent weeks has focused on a few controversial sections. They include one allowing the FBI to seize records from financial companies, libraries, doctors’ offices and other businesses in terrorism investigations, and another that permits “roving wiretaps” that apply to a person rather than a particular telephone.

Tweet
Share

Comments

35 thoughts on “Colorado Reps. Go Party-Line on Patriot Act”

  2. The Republicans! They understand that you can not reason with Radical Islam and Terrorist and that if freedom is to prevail at all that we must fight for it… not wish for it. The Terror bombings in England reming the American public and voters in stark terms which political party is about preserving our Freedoms and liberty and that is the Republicans.
    I predict with the current policy model of the Democrats that they will once again suffer at the ballot box November.
    One need only look to convention of the AFL-CIO to see that the once apendage of the Democrat party is breaking away because other than the government unions the Democrat Party is out of step with the rank and file.
    The Question is what will be the Party to replace the Democrats when it fades away?

  3. “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” — Benjamin Franklin, 1759

    You can’t preserve Freedom and Liberty by removing them.

  4. And when it’s time to debate gun control and the 2nd Amendment, I’ll just bet that quote goes back in the closet.

    “So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do.” Or not do, in this case.  In summary:  “He that lives upon hope will die fasting. “

  5. BenFan,
    There are a lot of gun toting meat eating progressives in Colorado.  Republicans are sacrificing liberty and freedom in America because they cannot get a grip on their fear.  Terrorism only works when the target reacts with fear.  The Republican leadership in this country is acting like a bunch of hysterical pansies.  Bin Laden and al quaeda have BushCO and their supporters scared silly.  Will al quaeda still hate us when we have no freedom?

  7. Good point, Kenevan.

    To put it another way:  If terrorists kill people, there are millions more to stand in their place; but if terrorists cause the people to give up their treasured values, then those people can no longer stand where the fallen once proudly stood.  Our soldiers fight and sometimes die to defend liberty and freedom; what are we sending them to fight for if we at home consent to curtail those freedoms?

    What is this country if it no longer stands by the Bill of Rights?  What is this country if the Government can peer into your house to make sure you’re not doing anything wrong, without your knowledge?  What is this country when the government can take your computer under the guise of national security, and blame it on an unsolved burglary?  What is this country if citizens can be held without due process on the mere accusation of terrorist ties?  What is this country if people aren’t free to express views inconsistent with those of the Government?  This is the PATRIOT Act at it’s heart, and if it is not over-ruled by judges brave enough to stand against fear, it will no longer be a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

  8. I think everyone is sick of the GOPers wrapping themselves in the flag, “we support the troops better than the Dems,” the Patriot Act is somehow fighting radical Islam baloney.  Take your Ken Mehlman/Karl Rove talking points and shove em where the sun don’t shine – Guatanamo Bay, maybe?

    I am an ardent Dem and I bet anything I own more guns than you GOPer, have more friends and family fighting in Iraq AND I bet my 4th of July firworks display is better than yours too.

    By the way, some industrious ColPols reader should find the actual number of terrorists convicted under the Patriot Act (excluding the Administration’s gross overstatements).  I am pretty sure it is under 30 and the rest are petty criminals and drug dealers AKA serious threats to national security.

  10. So Democrats taking away liberties like the second amendment, a humans right to life, my property, and last but not least my hard earned money through their desire for higher taxes and bloated govt are not a threat get real!!!
    The American public trusts the Republicans to protect us if you doubt this then why did the Republicans dominate both elections since Sept. 11th? Care to try best three out of four? I am afraid your silly naive howard dean, george soros, jane fonda talking points are going to fail again in 2006. Please remember if you are the last Democrat left at the hillary-a-thon convention in 2008 to please turn out the lights!

  11. This has already become a boring conversation.  The Republican cliche talking points about Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, blah blah blah belong on Bill O’Reilly’s show, not here on ColPols, where everyone’s an expert.
    You are correct that the majority of the races in 2002 and 2004 were won by Republicans, but just like the rich, white girls of Cherry Hills, even America likes to go slummin once in awhile.

  12. Trotting out Jane Fonda!  Now that’s a brilliant and timely way to make your point. 

    Maybe Democrats should retort by calling Republicans the “Party of Nixon.”

    Will someone please wake me when Rush’s talking points aren’t being printed verbatim here and a Republican actually makes a relevant point beyond name-calling?

  13. * 2nd Amendment:  Already duly noted that many of us here support the right to bear arms.
    * Right to Life:  Many Progressives are against the Death Penalty, and almost all of us would love to see abortion rates dwindle to nigh-on nothing.  But we also don’t put a not-well-defined maybe-life over the life of a woman.
    * Property:  I don’t want municipalities condemning land to put in a Wal-Mart; I also think it’s the responsibility of municipalities, states, and the federal government to further limit their own powers under the Constitution; issue already discussed the other day.
    * Higher Taxes:  You get what you pay for.  You pay for nothing, you get nothing.  You pay for social responsibility, you get social responsibility.  Difference of philosophy, and if it’s your driving reason for voting Republican, then continue to vote for the corrupt, Constitution-destroying, power-hungry mob that’s taken over the party.

  14. “The Party of Nixon” – that has a nice ring to it.  It certainly isn’t the Party of Lincoln any more.

    PS – missed something in favor of ranting on the blindness of GOP2…  If you don’t like taxes, I suppose you’re more in favor of just racking up the deficit?

  16. Bitterness about the 2000 and 2004 elections aside, I think Kevin’s question about AlQaeda still hating us when we have no freedoms is a good one.

    First, I’ll say that our freedoms are enshrined in the Constitution, and the Patriot Act must be presumed constitional until decided otherwise.  So ‘no freedoms’ I just can’t envision.

    But for the sake of argument, if the pat act did indeed take away all our freedoms, I would say, yes, AQ would still “hate us” as it were (although I think this is a way oversimplified way of describing AQ).  Look, militant islam is not a religion, okay?  It’s straight up authoritarianism.  They don’t even hate, really.  But insofar as you use the terms, they would in fact ‘hate us’ until our society was not a threat to their agenda, which seems to be, ultimately, world domination of their brand of ‘islam’.  So I ask you, are we better off countering them with or without the patriot act?

  17. BenFan – how many terrorists have been prosecuted using information gathered under the PATRIOT Act?  I believe the answer is None.

    Now, can you tell me how many people have been subjected to PATRIOT Act searches?  The answer here is: we don’t know, the government won’t tell us and it is a crime to reveal this information.

    Are we better off with or without the PATRIOT Act?  I think much of it is pointless.  There are a couple of provisions I strongly agree with, such as inter-jurisdictional warrants for mobile phones.  But bypassing judicial warrants, sneek-and-peek search and seizure, and library records searches are not among the provisions that this country needs or should tolerate.

  18. I choose to fly my flag proudly rather than “wrapping myself” in it. I support our troops therefore I support what mission they are trying to accomplish. I would much rather wait in line at an airport longer or give up some basic freedoms than have my country attacked again. Democrats need to step back and realize September 11th did happen, terrorist attacks do happen and we need to protect ourselves from them. If the Patriot Act helps even a miniscule amount than that is better than nothing. So thanks but I will continue to fly my flag high, support our troops and not vote for those who feel the Patriot Act is a violation of our freedom.

  19. The Democrat party of today is controled by a fringe very small group of east/west coast elite. They hate America because in their sick twisted circle we are bad and Osama is good and if we just bowed down to them all would be fine, it’s the same crew who shrinked at the communists, and ran from Hilter and imperial japan. I encourage Democrats to keep saying the same junk and hope for a different outcome in the next election i think that is the definition of stupidity.

  20. Honestly, what have you done for the troops?  Can you enlist? Why haven’t you? America is for heroes, not traitorous bastards who out our secret agents.  Not for scum sucking pigs that believe in “sneek and peak search warrants issued by secret courts.”  I believe in the rule of law not a will to power.

    I am not afraid.  Republicans need to grow a sack and stop wrecking our country.  Republicans and the 43 democrats that voted with them are fighting Osama’s war for him with the Patriot Act.  Honestly a a bunch of cowards.  No wonder Osama hasn’t hit us since 9/11; we’ve spent over 200 billion, 1800 lives, sacrificed the Geneva convention, our Constitution, and a CIA agent cause we’re scared.  The terror of 9/11 is still driving our government to destroy us from the inside out.  If Osama could have taken out Saddam, he would have.  We did it for him.

    I’m going to go drink liberally. Fuck BushCO and his minions of hell!

  21. I think it is important to point out that almost every provision in the Act merely expands on existing laws to apply to terrorism.  Most of them are just RICO laws and applying them to the crime of terrorism.  Where was the outrage then and why should a mobster face more scrutiny than a potential terrorist.  It is also important to note for those of you who think Alberto Gonzales is making sure you returned that copy of Charlotte’s Web in 3rd grade, you should look at section 215 and realize that it is not a special section dealing with libraries and bookstores.  Rather it requires organizations and people to produce “tangible things” – the same type of materials that prosecutors have long been able to obtain with a simple grand jury subpoena.  Furthermore, section 215 can only be used to obtain documents only with an order from a federal judge.

  22. Kenevan-I have a done a lot for the troops and support them any way I can but no I have not joined but if I was 18 again I would. The only thing you are doing is causing more division in the US-which gives terrorism more of a chance to succeed. Thanks for your help it is people like you who are the scum sucking pigs.

  23. Phoenix-
    “PS – missed something in favor of ranting on the blindness of GOP2… If you don’t like taxes, I suppose you’re more in favor of just racking up the deficit?”

    How about cutting the spending? Budget cuts will bring back the glorious return of surpluses.

  24. I think that we can all agree that the Patriot Act is the furthest reaching limitation on the bill of rights that we have ever allowed.  For those of you only worried about the second amendment, you should be worried because this sets a troubling precedent.  We must ask ourselves what is the next step, and at what point do we stop sacrificing our freedoms.  Are stronger controls on other rights, including the right to bear arms always going to be off the table?

  25. “I would much rather wait in line at an airport longer or give up some basic freedoms than have my country attacked again.” And therein lies the problem. The false belief that if we give up some of our freedoms that we will be safer.

    The goal of terrorism isn’t killing people – thats a colateral effect. The goal is to install fear and when we change our way of life – agree to compromise on our principles, like the individual freedoms that we have fought to keep for over 200 years – then the terrorists have won.

    Sad as it is, sooner or later we WILL see another 9/11 – or worse. As many experts have noted – we have to bat 100% – catching them every single time. All they have to do is win once. Best case, sooner or later a lone suicide bomber will slip detection and people will die.

    Perhaps we should  learn from the people of Israel. When bombs go off in a nightclub full of people or at a pizzareia full of teens, it is sad and tragic and the nation mourns. But life will and does go on. And- as in the actual case of the pizzareia  – when the business reopens 2 months later they celebrate. Celebrate that their spirit and core beliefs are intact. That no terrorist can take that from them.

    Perhaps we should also learn the lesson from the Israeli military. That retaliating with military might doesn’t work against an enemy who uses individuals as weapons. Maybe the reltaliation does – or does not – drive more people to be martyrs – but tanks and helicopter gunships can’t wipe out an enemy of individuals. Not unless you exterminate an entire people.

    I’m not arguing any specific agenda for dealing with islamic extremists – I’m just not that smart. But I do know one thing – giving up what this country stands for and changing our way of life because of irrational fear – well that WON’T work! When we change our way of life we send the most dangerous message of all to the terrorists. That what they are doing WORKS. Lets NOT do that.

  26. Free country?  We practically fell all over ourselves giving away our freedom when the Pat Act passed.  One attack and we forked the whole thing over, crying, “Please, please, please protect us from those bad people.”

    You, my Republican friend, can now be arrested for absolutely anything, and be held without trial or counsel for an indefinite period.  And you guys say you’re for freedom?

  27. Hey, Lincoln Fan.  Bite me.  I really don’t think there’s anything more to be said about that canned piece of offensive propogandist crap you just laid on this site.

    I guess this site has finally become popular enough to get the hardcore rote-reciting Republican robots to posting every time they see something called “dissent”.

  28. Honest – why does supporting our troops mean supporting the mission?  Doesn’t supporting our troops mean defining the proper mission in the first place?

    Doesn’t supporting our troops mean taking a serious approach to national security leaks – like suspending clearances or even employment for those who are under investigation, like they do in police departments, schools, and national laboratories?  After all, how is the CIA supposed to offer assurances of safety to agents and informers when the politicos above them are rattling off the names of their contacts and/or case officers?

    I want to support our troops, too.  I want them to have all the supplies they need, as soon as I can get them there.  I want to assure them that the country they are protecting is still the country it was when they left.  I want them to know that their efforts abroad aren’t based on a lie.  And I want them to know that while they’re out doing their duty, we at home are not sitting idly by and allowing our domestic security precautions to remain in a pathetic state.

  30. How spending $1,000,000,000 (one billion) a week in Iraq is making us safer, especially when so much cash is disappearing into graft and corruption (in particular 8-1/2 billion is cash has admittedly completely disappeared) is beyond me.  Heaven forbid there is another 9/11, since the Bush Adm. evidently plans to use that as an excuse to nuke Iran, whether or not there is any evidence of Iranian involvement.  Lovely.

    The Patriot Act in effect repeals the 4th Amendment to the Constitution:  Section 215 gives the government the power to:

    o  Order any person or entity to turn over “any tangible things” so long as the FBI specifies that the order is part of an authorized terrorism or intelligence investigation.

    o  Obtain personal data, including medical records, without any specific facts connecting those records to a foreign terrorist.

    o  Prohibit doctors and insurance companies from disclosing to their patients that their medical records have been seized by the government.

    o  Obtain library and book store records, including lists of books checked out, without any specific facts connecting the records to a foreign agent or terrorist.  While the Bush/Cheney folks claim Sec. 215 has never been used to search or seize library records, a 2002 survey of librarians found that almost half of them reported being visited by federal or local law enforcement agents demanding access to federal records.  The Justice Dept. refused to disclose how many of those investigations were terror-related, claiming that was “classified.”

    o  Obtain private financial records without a court order, and without notification to the person involved.

    o  Conduct intelligence investigations of both U.S. citizens and permanent residents without probable cause, or even reasonable grounds to believe that they are engaged in criminal activity or are agents of a foreign power.

    o  Investigate U.S. citizens based in part on their exercise of First Amendment rights, and non-citizens solely on their exercise of those rights.  Decisions of what constitutes “in part” are left to a secret court.

    o  Those served with Sec. 215 orders are prohibited from disclosing that fact to anyone, even to their attorney.

    Section 213 permits the feds to:

    o  Conduct secret “sneak and peek” searches of your home.

    o  Enter your home or office and seize items for an indefinite period of time, without informing you that a warrant has been issued.

    Sec. 216 allows the feds to:

    o  Seize records that show the subject lines of your e-mails and the details of your web surfing habits.

    The bill approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee allows the FBI to exercise many of the powers outlined above without bothering to have to ask a judge or a grand jury for permission–they do not even have to ask the super-secret Foreign Intelligence Court.

    Anyone who thinks the use of these provisions have been limited to terrorist bad guys or even to criminals as opposed to political opponents, has not been paying much attention.

    Guess those founding fathers were pretty dumb to think we needed a 4th Amendment to preserve our liberty.

  32. Just for those die-hard Republicans that haven’t accepted the arguments I and others have put forward against the PATRIOT Act and giving up our freedoms in general:

    “We must remember that we are defending a way of life, not merely property, wealth, and even our homes… Should we have to resort to anything resembling a garrison state, then all that we are striving to defend…could disappear.”  — Dwight D. Eisenhower

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

389 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!