This is troubling:
A closed-door vote by the Senate Intelligence Committee to expand law enforcement powers under the USA Patriot Act is prompting sharp criticism from some conservative leaders who are otherwise among the most vocal allies of President Bush and the Republican leadership.
The conservative leaders, who have formed a coalition with critics on the left, including the American Civil Liberties Union, vowed to press their concerns in public statements, rallies and advertising.
While the conservatives have been long-standing critics of the anti-terror law, they lashed out with particular force last week at the White House, members of Congress and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, saying that they expected a more open review of the Patriot Act in which lawmakers would consider limits on some provisions in order to safeguard civil rights.
Instead, they complained, the Senate panel had moved in secret to expand the act. They are particularly upset about the proposed addition to the law authorizing “administrative subpoenas,” under which the FBI would be able to obtain a person’s medical, financial and other records in terrorism cases without seeking a judge’s approval.
This doesn’t seem like an outrageous demand:
Still, civil libertarians panned the bill and the closed-door meetings in which it was written.
“When lawmakers seek to rewrite our Fourth Amendment rights, they should at least have the gumption to do so in public,” said Lisa Graves, the ACLU’s senior counsel for legislative strategy. “Americans have a reasonable expectation that their federal government will not gather records about their health, their wealth and the transactions of their daily life without probable cause of a crime and without a court order.”
I know, I know. I am just being hysterical and Sullivanesque. I am sure someone can explain to me why I am a bad Republican, soft on terror, and turning to the dark side to please my new Democratic friends for not liking the Senate holding secret meetings to expand the Patriot Act.
SomeCallMeTim
I think it’s pretty clear that if no one sends a link to this post to the FBI to encourage further investigation of this “John Cole” character, the terrorists win.
Mike S
The amount of “governing” going on behind closed doors shoul scare the shit out of everybody. Regardless of whether you trust the people in power implicitly it’s the precedent that matters. I don’t trust the people in power now but for thos who do I have a question. Would you want Hillery, Nancy and Ted doing the same thing? And if you think something like that can’ and won’t happen re-read your history books. No party remains in power forever.
Mike S
The amount of “governing” going on behind closed doors shoul scare the shit out of everybody. Regardless of whether you trust the people in power implicitly it’s the precedent that matters. I don’t trust the people in power now but for thos who do I have a question. Would you want Hillery, Nancy and Ted doing the same thing? And if you think something like that can’ and won’t happen re-read your history books. No party remains in power forever.
Mike S
Sorry about that. I hit post and nothing happened. It stayed in preview mode.
Won’t happen again.
Far North
Government sanctioned torture, cooking up intelligence to support war, lying to Americans about the need to go to war, botching up the occupation, allowing bin Laden to remain free, backing out of the Kyoto treaty, sucking up to religious fundamentalists, allowing industry to dictate environmental law, hiring people to pretend to be independent journalists…………..damn, I have at least 30 more I could list.
Absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing is beneath the Bush administration.
The Bush supporter now embraces incompetence, deception and outright lying. The Bush conservative has a major character flaw. That is they cannot condemn anything Bush says or does because to do that would mean that they were wrong about so much. For example, say what you will about the decision to go to war, the post war planning was non-existent and we are paying the price to the tune of 1700 dead and 12,000+ wounded. But you won’t see or hear a Bush conservative hold Bush accoutable. Becasue to hold Bush accoutable would mean that the conservative was wrong. And according to the conservative, Bush conservatives just can’t be wrong.
Nope, anybody that criticizes anyting Bush does is just giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
One point before I forget:
That Zarcowi (sp?) guy in Iraq that we hear about all the time, you know, the king of all terrorists in Iraq, isn’t that the same Zarcowi that the US military could have “taken out” on 3 different occassions BEFORE the Iraq war. But of course Bush wouldn’t allow that because it might weaken his case for war. Check it out, Bushbots. Do a little research.
I know, I know, I was a little off the subject. I do applaud the true conservatives that joined the ACLU in speaking out against this Patriot act. Where have all the true conservatives gone, the ones that demanded fiscal sanity, the ones that demanded that we balance the budget, the ones that demanded that government stay off our backs? My, how Bush has hijacked the republican party. In 25 years or less, we will look back upon this administration and the hatred it has fostered around the globe and acknowledge that we followed a terrible “leader”, a “leader” that sparked the decline of America.
Enough. It’s bedtime.
p.lukasiak
The administrative supoena proposal that would allow the FBI to access medical and financial records does sound like a good idea, except….
Bush said Thursday that “federal terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against more than 400 suspects, and more than half of those charged have been convicted.” …
An analysis of the Justice Department’s list of terrorism prosecutions by The Washington Post shows that 39 people — not 200 — have been convicted of crimes related to terrorism or national security.
Most of the others were convicted of relatively minor crimes such as making false statements and violating immigration law and had nothing to do with terrorism, the analysis shows. The median sentence was 11 months.…
In fact, among all the people charged as a result of terrorism investigations in the three years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, The Post found no demonstrated connection to terrorism or terrorist groups for 180 of them.
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050612/NEWS06/506120498/1012
If we can’t trust the President of the USA to refrain from lying and exaggeration his regime’s accomplishments in the “war on terror”, and at least half the people being investigated for “terrorism” have no demonstrated connection to terrorism or terrorist groups , the potential for abuse of these new powers is staggering.
And as Mike S. notes, even if you think that Bushco is the absolute pinnacle of integrity, do you want those kinds of powers vested in politicians that you don’t trust?
Aaron
Lukasiak, re-read what Bush said. He did not lie or exaggerate.
BTW, did you know what they got Al Capone for?
Aaron
Lukasiak, re-read what Bush said. He did not lie or exaggerate.
BTW, did you know what they got Al Capone for?
ppgaz
“Bush did not lie or exaggerate.”
Wow, Aaron, you might be setting yourself up for a Pulitzer Prize here. If Bush failed to lie or exaggerate, that’s a major scoop.
Good work, keep digging for other remarkable revelations. Maybe next you’ll find out that Bush really does intend to protect the Social Security Trust Fund?
Rick
I am just being hysterical and Sullivanesque.
John Cole nails it!!!
“Americans have a reasonable expectation that their federal government will not gather records about their health, their wealth and the transactions of their daily life without probable cause of a crime and without a court order.”
Seems the horse left that barn decades ago.
Cordially…
p.lukasiak
Lukasiak, re-read what Bush said. He did not lie or exaggerate.
and Bill Clinton “didn’t have sex with that woman”, either, huh?
ppgaz
During a debate with then-Vice President Al Gore on Oct. 11, 2000, in Winston-Salem, N.C., Bush said: “I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation-building. . . . I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I’m missing something here. I mean, we’re going to have a kind of nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not.”
–Boston Globe
Bush said he still believed banned weapons could still be found in Iraq, that they could be hidden somewhere, destroyed shortly before the war, or moved to another country. Syria was the only country US officials said they suspected could have been the final destination of Iraq’s elusive WMDs. US Secretary of State Colin Powell and other top officials said they did not have any solid information that this was the case, but insisted that it remained a possibility, a charge that Syria vehemently denied.
— Account of Meet the Press Interview, February 2004
But hey, don’t waste your time Googling the staggeringly long list of Bush lies; it’s depressing.
But we’re nation-building now, constructing a happy new Arabia. It’s on tv every day, take a look. So, while his policy has apparently changed, at least the new strategy is stunningly successful!
The thing I like most about the Patriot Act is that it co-opts the idea of “patriot.” Can you imagine the patriots of 1776 pimping the Patriot Act? Well, they set the stage … the Bill of Rights was just a template for the Patriot Act, right?
John Cole
PPGAZ-
Having one position, having events change, andthen changing your position is not, in the real world, lying.
I swore I would never own a Subaru because of the idiots who drive them always seem to be in the left lane going 50. Recently, I have driven a few and see what good cars they are and that I really like them. If I buy one, does that make me a liar?
ppgaz
Two words, John:
Downing Street.
brenda
Aaron: “Lukasiak, re-read what Bush said. He did not lie or exaggerate.”
While legalistically true, the point is that the intent is to decieve. How do we know? Context… context is everything.
ppgaz
Brenda, you’re being snarky.
I mean, we all know that No Controlling Legal Authority would indict GWB for changing his mind, or for making up his mind first and telling us later that he hadn’t, or for embracing “all religions” with a straight face, after employing his political machine to get out the vote among people who want to embrace only one subset of one particular religion, or reading his lines from a Cato Institute blueprint for getting rid of Social Security while telling us that he is trying to ‘save” it, or telling us that his tax plan would “reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax”, or telling us that Iraq was “six months away from developing a (nuclear) weapon” (parenthesis mine), floating a story that the “Mission Accomplished” banner was put up by the crew of the USS Abraham Lincoln, when in fact it was the work of the White House Communications Office, selling himself as “a uniter, not a divider,” reversing his position on same-sex marriage from “states can do what they want to do” to pimping a constitutional amendment once it was discovered that the switch was worth votes, removing climate data from an EPA report in 2003 ….
Mike S
ppqaz
While I pretty much agree with much of what you wrote, that was all done out in the open. Some people chose to ignore that and the press chose not to dig too deep.
What worries me more is the stuff behind closed doors and/or writen by people with a vested interest. The energy policy, writen by energy interests behind closed doors. The patriot act, same thing and 99% of congress didn’t even read it. Environmental laws where petrol lawyers change scientific findings.
I don’t want to get in pissing matches about how Clinton tried it with healthcare, although most of the usual suspects who screemed about that and won are now defending the exact same thing happening with Bush. Polititions, all of them, have always and will always try to get away with as much as possible.
I’d rather figure out how we can stop it now before it’s too late. This country was founded with ideas like an informed public. We are no longer informed and that scares the shit out of me.
ppgaz
I agree to a large extent, although the advent of the blogosphere at least makes it more possible than ever to dig and get more information.
Personally, I think this is a really great thing. There are a few good blogsites out there, this is one of them. While I may — and do — disagree with Mr. Cole regularly, I never worry that he is going to lie to us. That alone makes the site worth its weight in gold.
Someday, straighforwardness will catch on. If we can just get a couple of decent presidential candidates for 2008. I haven’t seen one I really like yet, though.
John Cole
The energy policy, writen by energy interests behind closed doors. The patriot act, same thing and 99% of congress didn’t even read it. Environmental laws where petrol lawyers change scientific findings.
there is a distinct difference between the way the nergy policy was crafted and what happened in the Senate behind closed doors.
It is not unreasonable for a President to have private citizens, even if they represent business interests you despise, come in and advise him and his staff on what would be, in their eyes, a good or bad policy. it is not unreasonable for them to have an expectation of privacy, or, if you will, executive privilege. They are unelected, and it sets a bad precedent that could lead to private citizens and experts not feeling free to give the President candid advice.
The energy bill was then sent to Congress, where the process was completely transparent, and we know who did what where.
This is not the case here- we have a bunch of elected officals, people who answer to us- not private citizens, going behind closed doors to jigger with the foundations of our civil liberties.
One is perfectly acceptable, the other is not.
Birkel
I don’t like the behind-closed-doors work either.
But I do wonder if there is something we don’t know about intelligence gathering methods and techniques that must be kept from the public. If so, then those things should be held in private and the rest should be held in public.
This WH does not do a good job managing perceptions–not that they could satisfy ppqaz unless they all resigned–when it could do so. More openness, not less. Please!?!
ppgaz
No, Birkel, you are quite wrong.
I have no problem with legitimate classification of information.
What I have a problem with is mealy-mouthed, lying, spinning weasels.
Intelligence methods? I have no particular need, or desire, to know about them, unless they are evil in nature (say, torture, and by that I mean, torture … the current flap over the issue notwithstanding).
Let’s take the Iraq war as a case in point.
If the president had come forth in the summer of 2002, when he had already apparently made his decision to effect “regime change” in Iraq, and said, “I have looked at the situation and I believe that regime change is necessary and in the best interests of the United States and all peaceful nations. A long and costly war and subsequent rebuilding project in the face of possible long term insurgency is the commitment we must make. Many American lives and many Iraqi lives will be lost. But the world will be better off without Saddam Hussein” then at least we would be able to look back on the thing now, had the country backed this adventure, and say, okay, right or wrong, this is the decision we made as a free and informed people.
Instead, we saw quite a different scenario played out … and deliberately played out by connivers and winkers at the truth, by people who were all too happy to let the noise machines generate fear over WMD that did not exist and connections to 9-11 that did not exist (and come back two years later and say, with a straight face, Oh, we never really SAID those things). People I know have died. People I work with have lost sons and husbands, and here we are, finding out that it was all a big and cynical manipulation, a manipulation which must continue to this day in order to prop up deference to the manipulations already done.
“The world is better off without Saddam?” Oh yeah, well if that is such a fine reason for a war, then why weren’t the people trusted to make, or reject, that proposition three years ago?
Don’t bother answering, you already know the reason. Because that rationale for war would not have been accepted. But even if you can argue that it would have been, you are still left to explain why that case was not made and made to stand on its own two feet in 2002.
The answer to that implied question is the basis for my disgust with these potatoheads on this subject. For the very simple reason that nothing they say now can make that insult to this country go away. Nothing. There is no excuse for what they did, and that’s why they will never be able to make one.
Mike S
Ok John, I can almost accept that. But the fact that only buisness interests were consulted for the most part still disturbs me. I would be just as disturbed if a dem was crafting a crime bill and only used the ACLU and defence lawyers to craft it.
But you are right. There is a big difference between that and the PA.
Christie S.
two words: Star Chamber
Birkel
ppgaz,
Do not type
“No, Birkel, you are quite wrong”
when what you mean to type is
“I disagree.”
Thanks in advance.
Rick
Birkel,
Good one! You noticed that, too.
Cordially…
Anonymous
I cannot take seriously anyone who uses the word “blogosphere” without irony.
Birkel
Rick,
I just thought my suggestion would help ppgaz. :-O
It has too advantages: brevity and clarity.
Too much to expect from many on the Left but I’m a dreamer.
The Disenfrachised Voter
Actually I think ppgaz’s comments were right on. You were quite wrong.
Rick
Ummmm…TD Voter,
You’ve been peddling lots of advice and attitude around here, so I’ve got a friendly tip to enable you to indulge your indignation without cause us to snicker any longer.
Now I’m one of the worst slackers here in the realm of typos and indifference to proofreading. But……
Closely inspect your “middle name.” Forget that it’s a “word” like “irregardless” and “misunderestimate.” Keep looking, and you’ll see what I’m getting at.
Birkel wins again.
Cordially…
The Disenfrachised Voter
Actually the word disenfrachise–and yes it IS a word–is not the same as misunderestimate, which is NOT a word.
TDV wins again. Oh and get use to my attitude, you’ll learn to like it.
Rick
Actually the word disenfrachise–and yes it IS a word…
TDS,
LOFL! In what language are you making that assertion?
The fact that it’s a overly-compounded assembly like “irregardless” and “misunderestimated” and, say, “unredefeated” is just part of my jibing.
I mean, compassionate conservative intervention. Your handle–YOUR SCREEN-NAME– needs spell-checking. Considerate of me to let you know on a not especially populart comment thread, no?
“Wins again;” oh, my sides!
Cordially…
The Disenfrachised Voter
In the enhlish language…
From Websters:
dis
The Disenfrachised Voter
bah, english*
The Disenfrachised Voter
Furthermore, unlike irregardless and regardless, disenfranchise is considered a legitimate synonym for disfranchise…
disfranchise
v : deprive of voting rights [syn: disenfranchise] [ant: enfranchise]
Rick
Har-de-har-har. Look again, REAL CLOSELY, at your screen-name, TDV.
A non-word proudly displayed every time you hit “post.” You misunderestemate me.
Cordially, irregardless and still unredefeated…
The Disenfrachised Voter
LOL! Wow, I just showed that disenfranchise IS a word, and that it is considered a LEGITIMATE synonym for disfranchise yet you still think you “won”.
Hell, now I understand why you are a Bush supporter. Regardless of the obvious truth, you deny, deny, deny.
With every post you make, you only further the assault on your own credibility.
Rick
TDV,
Sigh. I’m really quite glad no one else is viewing this, because you’re just awfully slow on the uptake.
I implore you: *look closely* at your street-fightin’ man screen name. Don’t glance at it; *read* it syllable by syllable. Move your lips if you’ve got to.
I jibed on the other matter because your chosen middle name is language clutter, like inflammable and irregardless. Sorry to misdirect you so far afield in the realm of transitive verbs. Now wonder Karl Rove mops the floor with you folks.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a victory lap to run.
Cordially…
The Disenfrachised Voter
Well it appears you are still in denial.
Maybe if I post this three times it might sink in…
Furthermore, UNLIKE irregardless and regardless, disenfranchise is considered a LEGITIMATE synonym for disfranchise…
disfranchise
v : deprive of voting rights [syn: disenfranchise] [ant: enfranchise]
Furthermore, UNLIKE irregardless and regardless, disenfranchise is considered a LEGITIMATE synonym for disfranchise…
disfranchise
v : deprive of voting rights [syn: disenfranchise] [ant: enfranchise]
Furthermore, UNLIKE irregardless and regardless, disenfranchise is considered a LEGITIMATE synonym for disfranchise…
disfranchise
v : deprive of voting rights [syn: disenfranchise] [ant: enfranchise]
I hope that helped, though I’m sure it didn’t.
Cordially,
The guy who made you look like a fool
Rick
LOFL! OK, D-*Frach*
You really, really don’t get. Thus, your determination to cling to your ‘tardness.
You try to help someone…
Cordially…
The Disenfrachised Voter
Let me try this ONE more time…
UNLIKE THE WORD IRREGARDLESS–WHICH IS NOT CONSIDERED A SYNONYM FOR REGARDLESS–DISENFRANCHISE IS, I REPEAT, IS CONSIDERED A LEGITIMATE SYNONYM FOR THE WORD DISFRANCHISE
THIS IS ACCORDING TO THE DICTIONARY.
Now if you want to argue with the dictionary be my guest. That is an argument you will win, only because the dictionary can’t argue back. Unfortunately for you, you don’t have that priviledge with me.
Kimmitt
Dude, he’s making fun of you because you’re misspelling “disenfranchise” in your moniker. You’re leaving out the first ‘n.’
It’s the first time he’s ever comprehended anything he’s read. Let’s not take the moment from him.
The Disenfranchised Voter
haha wow. I sure do feel like a dumbass. I was totally missing the point.
He kept talking about irregardless and misunderestimate. Why couldn’t the shit just tell me it was mispelled?
Thank you Kimmitt.
Rick
D-Frach
See? Even Kimmitt backs my victory lap.
Your hot-headed responses carried this on way too long. Because I told you repeatedly to scan your name slowly. Beginning 6/13 @ 8:38 p.m.
Did you hearken? Noooo.
Cordially…
Rick
Kimmitt,
Thanks for showing up and intervening like a “good cop.”
I guess TDV is like one of those commie world radios, capable of picking up just one or two frequencies.
It’s the first time he’s ever comprehended anything he’s read.
Well, I’m up to at least TWO now. Ouch! I’m wounded.
See you…punks…around. Argh!
Cordially…