Why did Barack Obama vote in favor of reauthorizing the Patriot Act?
Ricky, you do realize that he spoke out against it, before he became a Senator?
This vote reauthorizes the PATRIOT Act with some modifications (amendments). Voting YEA extends the PATRIOT Act.
A bill to clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who receive national security letters are not required to disclose the name of their attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic communication service providers unless they provide specific services, and for other purposes.
Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because:
• Some may see the vote we are about to have as relatively trivial. They are mistaken. While the bill we are voting on makes only minor cosmetic changes to the PATRIOT Act, it will allow supporting the PATRIOT Act conference report that was blocked in December. Cosmetic changes simply don't cut it when we are talking about protecting the rights and freedoms of Americans from unnecessarily intrusive Government powers.
• The White House has tried to make life uncomfortable for Senators. It has suggested they are soft on terrorism, that they don't understand the pressing threat facing this country, that they are stuck in a pre-9/11 mindset. Those attacks should be rejected.
• We can fight terrorism aggressively without compromising our most fundamental freedoms against Government intrusion. The Government grabbed powers it should not have when it passed the original PATRIOT Act and we should not be ratifying that power grab today. The PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report is flawed. S. 2271 pretends to fix it but I don't think anyone is fooled, least of all our constituents.
• Because the Republican leadership obstructed efforts to improve the bill, the "police state" provisions regarding gag orders remain uncorrected. The Senate should get down to the serious business of legislating real fixes to the PATRIOT Act.
Reference: USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments; Bill S. 2271 ; vote number 2006-025 on Mar 1, 2006
Labken18, I posted the source above, the arguments are from opponents of the bill.. and only minor adjustments were made when Senator Obama voted for it.. if he was so adamantly opposed to this then he should have taken a stand and voted against it..
You can also find this information in the library of Congress. It has all the details on this bill.
EDIT: Labken18, I’m not aware of who made those specific arguments, although I do agree with them.. If it’s really that important to you, I can look up the info, but I don’t see how it’s even relevant, we already know it wasn’t Senator Obama..
Second of all I’ve already read through the original bill and this one, if there was any drastic change I wouldn’t take issue with this, but there obviously wasn’t..
I’m glad Senator Obama believes in compromising.. so much that he’d vote the rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution away.. Is this what I should expect from an Obama presidency? He wanted to end the war but the neo-cons told him not to, so he changed his position? Sorry you may admire his ability to compromise.. but I’m looking for a candidate with backbone, one that will stand up for what he/she believes in and one that will fight for us..
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
Because he is a spineless coward! He doesnt know what he stands for. It all depends on which way the wind is blowing today!
- labken1817Lv 61 decade ago
The Reauthorization of the Patriot Act initially failed in the Senate partially due to Obama's comments on the floor of the Senate arguing against reauthorizing the Patriot Act without provisions addressing the primary concerns of the original Patriot Act. After months of political haggling between Senate Republicans, Democrats and House Republicans and Democrats a compromise legislation was put forward by House members to reauthorize the Patriot Act while strengthing the civil liberties protections.
Here are the comments Obama made on the compromise bill of the Reauthorization of the Patriot Act Feburary 2006.
"Let me be clear: this compromise is not as good as the Senate version of the bill, nor is it as good as the SAFE Act that I have cosponsored. I suspect the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel the same way. But, it's still better than what the House originally proposed."
Obama's comments on the original Reauthorization of the Patriot Act (which he voted against) December 2005.Source(s): Jess, Who's comments are those? It says sources in opposition but doesn't state the person who made the comments. It had to have been one or more of the following, who are the only ones to vote against the bill. Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Byrd (D-WV) Feingold (D-WI) Harkin (D-IA) Jeffords (I-VT) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Murray (D-WA) Wyden (D-OR) I will agree that the bill did not go far enough and would have prefered the SAFE Act which was sponsored by Obama. However considering that every bill which did provide the appropriate conditions in regards to civil liberties failed, I feel the compromise was sufficient and would have voted for it myself. You see I don't want someone who is completely closed minded and unable to work towards a compromise. This is why I support Obama. As he has a great record workign in a bi-partisan manner for resolutions. He doesn't always vote along party lines and he is instrumental in whether or not a bill actually passes.
- john cLv 51 decade ago
Baracka Hussein Obama,Jr. AKA the polly parrot will usually copy the ideas and works of others, and I believe this is the case in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Check to see how Hillary voted and you will see Hussein's vote.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
OBAMA'S comments on the bill.
"Let me be clear: this compromise is not as good as the Senate version of the bill, nor is it as good as the SAFE Act that I have cosponsored. I suspect the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel the same way. But, it's still better than what the House originally proposed.
This compromise does modestly improve the PATRIOT Act by strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe. In this compromise:
*We strengthened judicial review of both National Security Letters, the administrative subpoenas used by the FBI, and Section 215 orders, which can be used to obtain medical, financial and other personal records.
*We established hard time limits on sneak-and-peak searches and limits on roving wiretaps.
*We protected most libraries from being subject to National Security Letters.
*We preserved an individual's right to seek counsel and hire an attorney without fearing the FBI's wrath.
*And we allowed judicial review of the gag orders that accompany Section 215 searches.
The compromise is far from perfect. I would have liked to see stronger judicial review of National Security Letters and shorter time limits on sneak and peak searches, among other things."Source(s): Plain and simple this is the answer to your question straight from Obama's mouth.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- AckDuScheisse!!Lv 41 decade ago
Let them KNOW. Jess! The Patriot Act is today, and INSULT to Americans... The fact the government doesn't scrap it, and propose a new act that takes away less civil liberties, and revokes the hi-jacked governmental powers it gave to the Elite.
Make THIS a MAJOR issue in politics today... what are we paying them for if we can't get them to do anything? ... and voting for them too!!
- Anonymous1 decade ago
He believe the good people of the government should know every little thing you have to say and what your plans are but at the same time we as people do not get much of a say towards much of anything. Barack is also for international government. look at CFR
- 1 decade ago
Jess, you are all that and a whole lot more! Keep on setting it straight!
- Jerry HLv 51 decade ago
it's obvious. And all the democrat share the same characteristics. They talk the talk of their constituents...but walk Bush's walk.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Ditto labken18. I looked it up.
- beestingLv 61 decade ago
In my opinion, a very poor decision on his part.
Do the American people want more losses of civil liberties, in the name of protection?
Gee, if all Americans are rounded up & put in jail compounds, they will be protected from terrorists!