-
"Guinta, Bass back Patriot Act extension"
Examiner.com - February 10, 2011
U.S. Reps. Frank Guinta and Charlie Bass sided with efforts this week to extend provisions of the Patriot Act.
The two New Hampshire Republicans followed the lead of the GOP leadership in the House, but the effort to extend the act failed.
And it wasn’t because of the Democrats.
The more conservative bloc of Republicans were responsible for the failure to get the two-thirds super-majority necessary to extend the provisions.
Guinta, from the 1st Congressional District, and Bass, from the 2nd Congressional District, were among the 277 members who voted on Tuesday to reauthorize key parts of the counter-terrorism surveillance law, which expire at the end of the month.
Those voting no numbered 148, which left the measure seven votes short for passage because of the two-thirds requirement.
According to coverage of the vote by the Washington Post: “The vote was the latest signal … that on certain matters House leaders could face a sizable resistance to compromise from within their own ranks, both from the 87 GOP freshmen and from conservative veterans who have been emboldened by the newcomers.”
The House GOP leadership was considering a move to reconsider the measure later this month in a format that will require only a simple majority for passage.
----------
"Dan Innis with terrorists? A low blow from Frank Guinta"
NH Union Leader, EDITORIAL, July 25, 2014
With all of the national security revelations of the last year, it is a really lousy debate point to suggest that those who want to protect Americans from government surveillance are on the side of the terrorists.
In a debate on WGIR-AM on Wednesday morning, candidates for the Republican nomination for Congress in the 1st District got into a brief discussion of national security and civil liberties. Dan Innis brought up the issue, saying he would have voted against the Patriot Act because it violated the First, Second and Fourth amendments.
Former Rep. Frank Guinta, who in 2011 voted to extend the Patriot Act, responded forcefully. “Let me say, you either stand with the terrorists or you stand with freedom and protecting Americans,” he said.
We were a little surprised that Guinta did not follow his comment by pulling a bald eagle out of his suit jacket and playing a snippet of Lee Greenwood’s “I’m proud to be an American” on his smartphone. And how can one be against freedom by arguing that the law must not trample constitutionally guaranteed freedoms?
That kind of knee-jerk patriotism, a desperate effort to end debate (and thought) on a serious issue, is how we wound up with the current surveillance state, which ought to trouble everyone. That it does not appear to trouble Guinta is concerning.
For his part, Innis was playing some clever politics — just like a pro. After the Edward Snowden revelations, it is easy to say that the Patriot Act went way too far. But at the time things were not so clear.
Approaching 13 years after the Patriot Act’s passage, Congress has yet to strike the right balance between security and liberty. We need to keep debating this issue.
Suggesting that Americans who want stronger protections from government snooping “stand with the terrorists” is not helpful.
Comments:
July 25, 2014 -
CHRIS HERBERT said:
Innis represents a technocratic free market fundamentalist viewpoint that dominates not only Republicans but the nation generally. This version of Republican attempts to project a more centrist viewpoint in other areas, such as government violations of citizen privacy. Guinta is full on reactionary, a devotee of ideology untethered from the real world. Either way, the nation has suffered miserably because of both types. Guinta, as does Senator Ayotte, likes nothing better than fighting a war somewhere, without end. Innis likes the idea of corporations and their owners, owning the federal government; a situation described by FDR as empowering the super rich who consider our government as a 'mere extension of their private affairs.' Plutarch, more than 2,000 years ago warned that income inequality and a super rich upper class are 'fatal' to Republics. He was warning about people like Innis. It remains to be seen if the New Hampshire voter can resist the propaganda of the Kochtopus, the reactionary Union Leader, and a Republican primary full of people who behave as if the 19th century has returned. I sure hope so. It's a mistake to believe the crazies cannot take over our lives just because we're in America.
Ginger Ferrer said:
Amen to that. Although, surveillance of a kind is necessary to protect citizens against crime. As in bank camera's at an ATM. How many times have these camera's been able to reveal the criminal who stole or even killed a citizen and used their ATM card to empty out their bank accounts? How about traffic cam's who document a hit and run or other related infraction? It is a necessity of a kind. But not a total necessity in every aspect of a citizen's life.Like everything else in our country, the abuses are mounting with regard to the very necessary monitoring of the criminal mindset that is forever looking for a way to get away with their illegal acts.So it is sort of like a catch 22 issue. ****** if we do, ****** if we don't.
----------
No comments:
Post a Comment