LIBERTY AT STAKE

Whatever the merits or lack thereof in SB 22, it is utterly unrelated to the contents of the draft Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, more commonly referred to as PATRIOT Act II.

Some crapy elephant and donkey shit as indicated by these subtitles within this act(SB22).

SHORT TITLE(S) AS INTRODUCED:
Justice Enhancement and Domestic Security Act of 2003
Innocence Protection Act of 2003
Prosecutorial Remedies and Tools Against the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003
National AMBER Alert Network Act of 2003
Anti Terrorist Hoax and False Report Act of 2003
Military Tribunal Authorization Act of 2003
Safe Borders Act of 2003
First Responders Partnership Grant Act of 2003
Say No to Drugs Community Centers Act of 2003
BLAST Act
Ballistics, Law Assistance, and Safety Technology Act of 2003
Our Lady of Peace Act of 2003
DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2003
Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act of 2003
Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2003
Social Security Number Misuse Prevention Act of 2003
Crime Victims Assistance Act of 2003
Providing Reliable Officers, Technology, Education, Community Prosecutors and Training in Our Neighborhoods Act of 2003
Identity Theft Victims Assistance Act of 2003
Seniors Safety Act of 2003
Protecting Our Children Comes First Act of 2003
National Child Protection and Volunteers for Children Improvement Act of 2003
Federal Bureau of Investigation Reform Act of 2003
Federal Prosecutors Retirement Benefit Equity Act of 2003
Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act of 2003
PROTECT Act

thanks for the contrast

Yeah ok, those are indeed the section titles for SB 22. They still don't relate to the draft DSEA of 2003.

22 sounds like it deserves some attention that it's not getting, regardless of whether or not it's like the DSEA.

Could the bill of rights defense folks explain a little more why this bill is not a threat to civil liberties? The titles of the headings sound ominous indeed. And a common technique of scheming legislators is to mask dubious laws in other legislation. Details on this? Thanks.

I didn't claim SB 22 wasn't (or was) a threat to civil liberties -- make no assertions on the merits of SB 22 either way. Simply said it bears no relationship to the draft PATRIOT Act II, a rumor that's been going around since February, and one that seems to be based almost entirely on superficicial glances at the section titles of SB 22. Haven't even looked at SB 22 in months now, so I'd have to go back into some old material before I could do any sort of concerted breakdown.

From the bill:

"SEC. 1503. CLARIFICATION OF SUNSET PROVISION IN USA PATRIOT ACT.

Section 224(a) of the USA PATRIOT ACT (Public Law 107-56) is amended by inserting before the period the following: `and any provision of law amended or modified by this title and the amendments made by this title (except for the sections excepted) shall take effect January 1, 2006, as in effect on the day before the effective date of this Act'."

This smells like it could be another attempt to make "PATRIOT" I permanent by repealing the original sunset provisions. Perhaps that explains why that Republican dickweed withdrew his amendment to another bill aiming to do the same thing- it was already concealed in S. 22

I'm not all that good at wading through Senatespeak, so if anyone with a legal background or the bordc could comment on this, it would be helpful.

After rereading the "CLARIFICATION OF SUNSET PROVISION IN USA PATRIOT ACT." section of S.22, it now appears to me that what that language actually aims at is to make it explicit that any laws altered by "PATRIOT" I REVERT TO THEIR ORIGINAL FORM when the "expiration date" passes.

In other words, it seems to me to mean "we're serious about the 'sunset provision', and here's exactly how it will work."

"Bob"-damned legal language. Pity but that Babelfish could translate it.

Sorry about the confusion.