So the Senate Intelligence Committee is not going to investigate President Bush's (supposedly) controversial surveillance program. There was also a 96 to 3 vote today in the Senate not to hold up the Patriot Act. Quite a fizzle, no?
UPDATE: There's still the question of the extent to which the House Intelligence Committee will investigate the surveillance program, and a federal judge has ordered disclosure of documents about the program, so maybe there is still some fizz left. But the WaPo detected "a dramatic and possibly permanent drop in momentum for a congressional inquiry, which had seemed likely two months ago."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
24 comments:
Quite a fizzle, no?
But apparently some objectionable parts of the "Patriot" Act have been excised. So maybe it's not so fizzly.
Very proud again that Russ Feingold is my senator. I appreciate that he is a watchdog for my rights.
Very proud again that Russ Feingold is my senator. I appreciate that he is a watchdog for my rights.
With all due respect, and usually when people start off like that, what follows is very disrespectful, but...
I hope your rights (and mine) are on our minds, when there is a terrorist attack next time.
-- Obviously, it's a question of when, not if --
Because you can be sure that these excised bits of the Patriot Act will be referred to by people like me, as having contributed to that attack, which had been prevented during the time the full Patriot Act was in place.
This is called giving people an opening.
Cheers,
Victoria
madisonman,
Specifically, what rights do you not have now that you enjoyed prior to Patriot Act? And, specifically, what can you not do now that you could do prior to the Patriot Act?
Madisonman is right, we are above spying on people that want to kill us. American Jurisprudence has the bastards quaking in their boots, so let it run its course.
Funny how all these wild charges just evaporate, isn't it.
Oh well, there will still be dark mutterings and baseless speculations on a daily basis about something.
Specifically, what rights do you not have now that you enjoyed prior to Patriot Act?
The right to be left alone by the government. The right to not have the government snooping into my life for no good reason.
And Victoria, I'm waiting to read an account of how the "Patriot" Act has prevented a terrorist act. From your words, it appears you are willing to sacrifice some freedoms for a little security. I'm not. I live with bigger threats than terrorist attacks every day I walk into work.
>The right to not have the
>government snooping into my life
>for no good reason.
You still enjoy this right.
You do not now nor have you ever enjoyed the right to keep the govt from snooping into your life for *good* reason. "Talking to terrorists" would seem to qualify as a good reason.
I would hope Madisonman that the simplicity of using box cutters to kill roughly 3,000 of us would give cause to sacrifice a few granted privliges when the availability of nuclear and biochemical material looms menacingly near. The threats we face in our everyday lives cannot disrupt and quite possibly cripple an entire nation. If a drunk driver makes me a grease spot on the road, you will still have your job and your children will not have their skin oozing from their faces from a suitcase nuke smuggled in under the protection of the most liberal and robust interpretation of our Constitution possible. You falsely assume that if privliges, or rights as you deem them, are revoked, they must forever remain in said condition. Such thinking would have kept the Japanese Americans in the camps and Blacks in the back of the bus, after all, it was the Law.
The right to be left alone by the government.
Unfortunately, your right to be left alone seems to conflict with my right to be protected. Fortunately, my right seems to have trumped yours.
'Specifically, what rights do you not have now that you enjoyed prior to Patriot Act? And, specifically, what can you not do now that you could do prior to the Patriot Act?'
If new additions to the PA are passed there's a possibilty that the Secret police will be wisking you off to one of the many detention centres to be built under the new act.
My belief was that the NSA program was legal under article II, and what not.
But, with the Patriot Act, there was likely some inappropriate sharing a of information with the FBI. One day that may come back to bite the adminstration on the ass.
As long as the surveillance was used for millitary purposes, I figure it was justified. If leads are passed onto the FBI and they generate criminal investigations and prosecutions, then there is a problem.
If the FBI simply does the leg work for the NSA and passes the information on to another DOD department, then I think we would have a good system.
The main issue is that the sharing of information could lead to unrelated investigations, or that in the future the FBI might look back to the NSA leads, which they other wise would not have, to help with non-national secutiry investigation.
1. Judge Kennedy is going to be told he doesn't have an adequate security clearance, so stick the request where the sun don't shine.
2. It'll go to the Supremes... which might be interesting.
madisonman,
Thanks for the response. Others have already answered for me so there's no point in re-stating what's already been said. Suffice to say the Patriot Act hasn't limited your rights in any way and may have helped track down terrorists. I don't see the down side.
In your world, it's as if September 11th never occurred, right?
Did 1776 happen in yours? Should my compassion for those from 9/11 be more or less than compassion for those who were killed fighting for my freedom? Freedom that IMO is being whittled away too much by the "Patriot" Act.
I understand completely why the Executive Branch wants this law. After all, 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, and I'm sure he wants to make certain it doesn't happen again. Wasn't that the central plank of his re-election platform? I just think the law intrudes too much. The latest version is better than the old, however; I'll warrant that. At least it evolves in the right direction, but a little too slowly.
If new additions to the PA are passed there's a possibilty that the Secret police will be wisking you off to one of the many detention centres to be built under the new act.
Are you referring to section 605, which states:
"A permanent police force, to be known as the 'United States Secret Service Uniformed Division,'" empowered to "make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence" ... "or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony."
Here is a response from a political blog:
"For those us that practice criminal law in DC we are well aware of the Uniformed Division of the Secret Service. This Division has been around for quite a while. It used to be known as the Executive Protection Service, protecting embassies and the like. The Uniformed Division still protects embassies, but they do have general police powers here in DC. I guess the amendment intends to make the Uniformed Division national in scope. The cops that make up the Uniformed Division are the ones that didnt make the cut to be a regular Secret Service agent. Many go the Uniformed route to get their foot in the door. At least here they can effect traffic stops, make warrantless arrests for any crime occuring within eyeshot. They often handle the credit card frauds and the like. So its not a novel idea, just an expansion of a force already in place".
Now if you assume this is from Powerline or LGF or some other right wing nut job site, it's not. It's from TalkLeft.com.
The "Secret Police Gestapo" angle is not applicable to this part of the Patriot Act Part Deux because
A) they have the same rights as one making a citizens arrest, and
B) this "new" law enforcement branch is not new at all, but is being transferred over to Homeland Security
Given all that has gone on in the FMA vs Katrina hearings, I would be even less concerned, as it will become just another inefficient, bloated, bureaucratic non-functional anchor created by the Bush administration, just like reorganized FEMA, Medicare "Doh", or the TSA.
And yes, that is sarcasm.
brylin: So let's get this straight, you blame Bush for September 11th?
Why is my factual statement that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch an assignment of blame in your book, and not a simple statement of fact like I meant it to be?
And only Bush wants make certain that September 11th doesn't happen again? Not you?
Again, where have I said that I don't want to make certain it doesn't happen again?
My point, which I'm obviously having difficulty relating, is that there are parts of the "Patriot" Act that went too far. I think laws enacted during times of high dudgeon frequently do. As others have noted, the pendulum is (thankfully) swinging back towards sense.
You might ask yourself: If The USA PATRIOT act was such a good thing, then why has Congress just voted to water it down? What's changed since 2001?
Because Madisonman and all others worried about the rights of terrorists (believe me, we don't have the manpower in this country to snoop on the important conversations of Madisonman or myself) or communists or other ists in this country are concerned about intelligence gathering being squeaky clean and have been since the 70's we have few intelligence capabilities.
My chief beef with FISA brouhaha is that if the snooping is illegal, and the evidence can't be used in court, what do you gain? Why do something that might be illegal to get the goods on someone if those goods are ultimately inadmissible?
Wouldn't it have been better to follow the law, and work to get it changed? What's the Republican House and Senate going to do -- turn down the White House?
Suddenly I'm talking FISA, not USA PATRIOT act (Does anyone know what the acronym means, without resorting to google?) How'd that happen?
MadisonMan said...
[Question to him]Specifically, what rights do you not have now that you enjoyed prior to Patriot Act?
The right to be left alone by the government.
Oh, we'ev eliminated the minimum wage law? There's no more FDA, and the War on Drugs is over?
No? Then exactly how is it that you claim that "the government" is "leaving you alone"?
You Democrats want to use the government to "do good". You can't do that while "leaving people alone." Pick one.
Armando: I intended that "supposedly" to be a sarcastic remark about the failure of the opponents in Congress to do much opposing!
ChrisO
This thread seems to be running out of steam but I didn’t want to let your comments pass without addressing them. Take a look at what I said to madisonman and you’ll find I didn’t ask him how the law affected him personally. (Boy, talk about high school debate tactics! Take your opponents statements and change them to suit your own argument. Gosh.) Rather, I asked for specifics. So far, no one has been able to come up with anything that this law prohibits that they couldn’t do before. I dare say completing your income tax return allows the government to inquire more about what you do and when and with and for whom you do it than the Patriot Act.
No, the Patriot Act is intended to help the government flush out and apprehend terrorists. (And the purpose is not to convict terrorists of crimes in a court of law and have them serve sentences. The purpose is to stop them from committing terrorist acts!) You were never allowed to act like a terrorist before the Act nor are you allowed to act like a terrorist now.
So, again I ask, how is specifically is the Patriot Act compromising your rights? How is it stopping you from doing what you used to do before the Patriot Act was passed? And, by all means, don’t limit yourself to personal examples. Give me any examples.
Two thoughts:
1. Pete: I thought I'd take a crack at the last comment-the suggestion that nothing has changed under the PATRIOT act. Here is just one example that applies to everyone in the US: The government, using a national security letter, can obtain any kind of information (for example, your credit card bills or the titles of books you buy from Amazon) by issuing a national security letter. There is NO judicial oversight of the issuance of these demands. Oh, and by the way, it's a crime to tell the person that the government demanded the information. Demands by government to turn over information based on speculation by government agents with no responsibility is troubling if for no other reason than that the only thing keeping the government from showing up at your home or office and pawing through your stuff without a warrant is the good faith of the agents. I'm always surprised and amused when conservatives suddenly acquire a faith in government competence. If there's anything that the last 200 years have taught us (and frankly, I would think conservatives would agree, given their usual skepticism towards the abilities of government), it's that we cannot rely on that sentimental notion.
2. Rogera: Congress punted, certainly, but I don't agree on the reason. I think it's percieved as a loser issue politically, which is far different from a loser in the courts. Most legal analysis suggests that at the least, it's far from a loser in the courts.
Sparky,
Thanks for the response and good point.
But the operative part of your statement is “the government CAN” issue a national security letter. The big fear seems to be that because the government can do such a thing, we’re curtailing our visits to the library or Amazon.com and cowering in fear, waiting for the government to break down our doors. That’s simply not happening.
And, though the government may be able to obtain such records, it’s an entirely different matter to use those records against you in a court of law. It’s still not against the law to check out books on how to commit terrorism. (The internet allows you to obtain just about any kind of material you’d like. Again, how does the Patriot Act stop you from doing that?) It’s the actual act of terrorism that’s unlawful. And it was unlawful before the Patriot Act.
And, yes, as a conservative, I don’t trust the efficiency of the government in such matters – I’m also a former employee of a huge Federal bureaucracy so I know first hand how these things can work. Still, I’ve yet to be pointed to a story where the Patriot Act was used, and abused, to keep a citizen from committing lawful behavior.
Pete--thanks for your reply. I think we will have to agree to disagree. I have a different view of what liberty consists of in this country: not what the government can prevent you from doing, but what the government is prevented from doing. If the government can spy on us without any consequences, I think it is inevitable that someday--maybe not today, or next year, but someday--someone will use that power for nefarious purposes. And once we've given that oversight away, we shall never get it back. I think we are trading away liberty for a mess of pottage.
Here's a quote from William Douglas that I think is appropriate at the moment:
As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there's a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.
Mr Ugly:
I respectfully disagree. Here is a conservative law professor dissecting Turner's arguments. Note that he thinks there isn't any issue that the Supreme Court would rule against this program on A. II grounds.
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_12_25-2005_12_31.shtml
Post a Comment