Patriot Games

If House Democrats had stuck together in opposition to moves by the Bush administration to reauthorize the worst elements of the Patriot Act, the legislation would have been defeated and a major victory would have been won for civil liberties.

Unfortunately, Democrats did not stick together on Thursday, when the House considered sixteen provisions of the act that are set to expire at the end of the year unless they are reauthorized by Congress.

Following a day-long debate on Thursday, the House voted 257 to 171 to extend, and in some case make permanent, the most controversial provisions of the law that was hastily crafted in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. "Now we know the truth. The Patriot Act was never intended as an emergency measure," argued Representative Lynn Woolsey, the California Democrat who has long been an outspoken critic of the law that had its start in former Attorney General John Ashcroft's Justice Department. "It appears the sponsors were always interested in a permanant crackdown on civil liberties."

There was far more opposition in the House this year than was seen in 2001, when the vote for the original version of the Patriot Act was 357-66. But Thursday's House action was a far cry from the vote that should have -- and could have -- been taken to place reasonable limits on the unprecedented powers that the so-called "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001" gives government agents to seize educational, financial and medical records.

Of the 257 votes cast Thursday for the Bush's administration's version of the Patriot Act, 214 came from Republicans, while 43 came from Democrats -- including Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, of Maryland, and Rahm Emanuel, the Illinois representative who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Of the 171 votes against the administration's version of the Patriot Act, 156 came from Democrats, 14 from Republicans and one from Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders.

Had the 43 Democrats who voted with the White House and the Republican leadership instead sided with House Democrats and Republicans who were worried about the threat to civil liberties posed by the Patriot Act, the opposition total would have risen to 214 while support for the measure would have fallen to 214.

On a tie vote, the legislation would not have advanced.

That would have been more than just a setback for the White House's draconian approach to civil liberties. It would have dramatically improved prospects for a bipartisan move by members of the Senate to clean up the Patriot Act. On Thursday, as the House was debating the issue, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted unanimously for legislation that would require greater oversight of the Justice Department's role in implementing the act and that would place new restrictions on surveillance and secret searches.

The Senate is divided on the question, however. The chamber's intelligence committee voted in June for a separate bill that would make all provisions of the Patriot Act permanent and give the FBI additional powers to issue subpoenas without the approval of a judge.

The fight will now play out in the Senate, where Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold -- who cast the sole Senate vote against the original version of the Patriot Act -- is a leading for of blanket reauthorization.

While he is still hopeful about prospects that the Senate can pass a better bill and then negotiate changes in the House legislation, Feingold was disappointed by the failure of the House to address the fundamental civil liberties concerns that have been raised by the Bush administration's approach.

"I joined my Senate Judiciary Committee colleagues yesterday in unanimously passing a consensus, bipartisan bill that significantly improves the most controversial provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act," Feingold explained on Friday. "In the House, unfortunately, the outcome has been disappointing. House leadership refused to allow meaningful amendments to come to a vote on the House floor. While some improvements were incorporated, the end result is still a far cry from what Congress owes the American people – meaningful changes to the Patriot Act that will protect innocent people from government surveillance. The Senate Judiciary Committee took the first step in that direction yesterday morning. It's unfortunate that the House was not willing to join us."

It is doubly unfortunate that the administration won a House endorsement for its approach with the support of 43 Democrats, including several such as Hoyer and Emanuel who hold key leadership positions in a party that is supposed to be at least a little bit more committed to defending civil liberties.

Comments (81)

1. I just hope that the Senate has more concern for civil liberties than the members of the House do. Thanks to the Patriot Act, 1984 has been incredibly relevant again in my English classes. If anything, studying the Patriot Act shows how Orwell was a prophetic visionary.

   Posted by Daniel Rubin at 07/22/2005 @ 12:03pm

2. This was purely an emotional vote. In the wake of the London bombings, politicians wanted desperately to be seen to be doing something.

   It would be better if they were seen to be doing something effective. Reauthorization of the most odious provisions of the Patriot Act is not. It is not only political posturing but dangerous posturing.

   Personally, I have no problem with that part of the Patriot Act that allows US foreign intelligence agencies, the FBI and local authorities to share information where their investigations overlap. We are dealing with terrorist organizations based in South Asia that possibly have sleeper cells in western countries, including this one. Under these circumstances, such a provision simply makes good sense.

   However, provisions curtailing civil liberties are entirely unnecessary. The provisions authorizing indefinite detention, abridgement of attorney-client confidentiality, sneak-and-peaks searches, roving wiretaps and the searches of private records such as library and book store accounts, among others, have no place in American law.

   Please read the information about the Patriot Act [aclu.org] from the ACLU.

   Posted by Jack Rabbit at 07/22/2005 @ 1:28pm

3. I don't know. I think everyone is going to wait to see how the Brits handle their situation. From what I have been hearing, they are going to have no mercy on muslims. When the bombers are Brits and not from other countries, it is a wake up call. I have also heard that their actions may carry into the EU countries, who are also waiting to take the nod from Blair. All their ACLU type protections may be thrown right out the window. Sorry guys! Europe is starting to wake up to this and the movement over there is favoring taking action rather than compassion. The ACLU would be laughed at in England right now. Notice how things are moving so quickly over there? Notice how Pakistan is making arrests? They know that can tool on the US because of the ACLU.

   I'm sorry, but the ACLU is driving common sense people who have no care for politics in America to the right. Even Sen Byrd today praised the nomination of Robersts because he says the courts are being over run by radical liberals. He refers back to asking Nixon back in the 70's to do something about it. By the way, did you also hear that Kennedy was slammed by Mass. Reserve Military Troops in Gitmo?

   Posted by dancall at 07/22/2005 @ 2:44pm

4. God bless our troops for giving it to the CAPE COD ORCA. If only Little Dick Durbin was there to get a good ration of Sh*t. Maybe he would'nt be popping off anti-american hate speech so much. Its amazing how a little crow really can shut a big mouth up quick!!

   Posted by aludra at 07/22/2005 @ 3:05pm

5. I don't think Durbin would have made it out of there!

   Posted by dancall at 07/22/2005 @ 3:11pm

6. Well, it's obvious by now that we don't need the Patriot Act. We don't want to become like the British with their cameras everywhere allowing them to quickly identify terrorists. That just wouldn't be right. NOT!

   And of course it's only because of Bush and Blair invading Iraq and Afghanistan and those corrupt House of Saud royal family. These muslim clerics are about peace and harmony with the rest of the world. Just look at these wonderful peace statements from this Muslim cleric in London today:

   Bakri, a Syrian-born cleric who has been vilified in Britain since 2001 when he praised the September 11 hijackers, said he did not believe the bombings and attempted attacks on London were carried out by British Muslims.

   He condemned the killing of all innocent civilians but described attacks on British and U.S. troops in Muslim countries as "pro-life" and justified.

   Bakri said he would like Britain to become an Islamic state but feared he would be deported before his dream was realized.

   "I would like to see the Islamic flag fly, not only over number 10 Downing Street, but over the whole world," he said.

   Posted by love liberty at 07/22/2005 @ 3:54pm

7. Zero,

   I understand your points. Maybe Orwell just knew that "absolute power corrupts absolutely." Stalin was Orwell's template for Big Brother. I truly feel that Bush's stranglehold on this country is very similar to any dictator of the past century.

   I hope that the provisions don't pass, and it wouldn't surprise me to see the Dems crumble in the voting in order to seem strong and pro-American.

   Posted by Daniel Rubin at 07/22/2005 @ 4:02pm

8. I just can't wait until the Brits tells the EU and the world, no more mr nice guy. You will see Germany and France get in line. It is happening now, but you guys don;t want to face the truth. If we have American radical Isalmics start hitting our cities, all hell is going to break out because the ACLU is their "big brother". Ted Kennedy would certainly change tunes if his beach house was targeted.

   Posted by dancall at 07/22/2005 @ 4:25pm

9. DANCALL, please support your arguments with something. You are passing off everything that you say as fact. Please show some sort of evidence to prove your theory that the Brits are going to essentially run the EU, as you are suggestting (ie: "I just can't wait until the Brits tell the EU and the world, no more mr nice guy. You will see Germany & France get in line. It is happening right now, but you guys don't want to face the truth."). Please support this argument somehow. I just don't see how they would want to risk their own national security by doing what the US & UK tell them to do.

   Posted by thejman at 07/22/2005 @ 4:41pm

10. DANCALL, I ask you to support your argument because as you said in the Daily Outrage blog comments:"Red, they are allowed to do that. That is their god, I mean, 'intellectual and philosophical' given right to do as they please without bringing some sort of fact based case that has any meat to it." Please do not hold others to standards that you cannot uphold yourself.

    Posted by thejman at 07/22/2005 @ 4:48pm

11. Yes, sadly they have.

    Posted by thejman at 07/22/2005 @ 4:49pm

12. I don't hate "libs," only the fake left.

    See www.unite-against-terror.com to see what is going on with the real Left (you never hear about this in "The Nation").

    Posted by RonS at 07/22/2005 @ 4:54pm

13. I wouldn't mind either. Yesterday we had a civilized exchange between myself & a few who are posting comments on this blog today (not all are here) & I enjoyed hearing opposing view points & expressing mine to them. However, it is now obvious that that was just a "one time thing" & that it probably won't happen again. P.S. I'm not quite sure what the "fake left" is but, whatever. Gotta go.

    Posted by thejman at 07/22/2005 @ 5:06pm

14. Please define the "fake left."

    Zero - I agree with your "cranks" comment; your term is much kinder than mine is. I think that a few bloggers do all they can to refute our perspective and just try to get many of us upset. It truly is like arguing with a child - their feet are so strongly planted that any "evidence" or points contrary to theirs are completely "wrong" each and every time.

    That is the sad part about this kind of discourse. Despite what Bush and several bloggers think, there is no such thing as this black and white, "you're either with us or against us" mentality. For me, I dislike Bush because he works on a 4th grade mentality. Many of us have a higher level of cognition and can therefore outthink, outdebate, and outanalyze him. Again, as with fighting with a child, you will never win. To Bush, being wrong (i.e., human) is impossible and unacceptable. That is just downright scary to me.

    So, do I always support Dems? Not a chance in hell. I hold everyone accountable to their actions and nail those that don't. Ethics (I refuse to say morality) is what is greatly lacking in Washington. It's all "do as I say" and "not as I do." That's why, if I was asked to register to vote today, I'd probably be an independent or Libertarian. I just can't stand the deceitful lies and vote-playing by BOTH sides.

    Posted by Daniel Rubin at 07/22/2005 @ 5:17pm

15. Yes I too find it wholly disingenuous of the majority-party to pull the ol' "bait and switch" maneuver. Parts of the PATRIOT ACT were meant to be periodically sun-setted to keep everybody honest. Well I guess you would have to BE an honest person or, party, initially... huh? ========================================================= CYCLOPS said: (from a very old and a bit over my head cut & paste I saved from another Blog here at THE NATION - I forget which one, so don't ask...) - "This clearly premeditated, paradoxical, and enigmatic epistle of high approbation hies to the associate of Hephaestus. Yes, that would be the monocular and mythical beast known as 'Polyphemus' the lurker. And yes this mythic character is from HomersIlliad720- written in 720 BC. Your adroit castigation of the iniquitous dolts of the 'Aile-Droite' has been duly noted by your kindred siblings Brontes, Steropes, and Arges. None of them, not even a dash of it, is a foe like Odysseus at Ithaca was to you. Nor is any of them a hillbilly-witted yahoo, lout, or brute unique to your chosen Internet (or dot com) antagonists from 'pseudo-majestic' hubris fame. Let the cerebral reader use utmost tangential sagacity here..." =========================================================

    CYCLOPS what the heck were you talking about here? Duh! The only Homer I am aware of is Fox's Homer Simpson cartoon character. Some of us just ain't dat' smart ya' know. We didn't all attend Yale and Harvard. However, it would be a great honor to confabulate with this Polyphemus feller in some arcane way... wouldn't it? [...D'ooh! [unclebubby.com]]

    Spooky [canvaswerks.com]

    "...the truth is out there Scully!" - Fox Spooky Mulder

    Posted by spooky_sr at 07/22/2005 @ 5:45pm

16. Maybe Bush should have said, you are either with us or with the Fascists. The fake left has decided, and they are with the fascists. Read the statements by those who signed the Unite Against Terror statement, such as:

    Peter Tatchell (Human Rights campaigner, London) "We are witnessing one of the greatest betrayals by the left since so-called left-wingers backed the Hitler-Stalin pact and opposed the war against Nazi fascism. Today, the pseudo-left reveals its shameless hypocrisy and its wholesale abandonment of humanitarian values. While it deplores the 7/7 terrorist attack on London, only last year it welcomed to the UK the Muslim cleric, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who endorses the suicide bombing of innocent civilians. These same right-wing leftists back the so-called 'resistance' in Iraq. This 'resistance' uses terrorism against civilians as its modus operandi - stooping to the massacre of dozens of Iraqi children in order kill a few US soldiers. Terrorism is not socialism; it is the tactic of fascism. But much of the left doesn't care. Never mind what the Iraqi people want, it wants the US and UK out of Iraq at any price, including the abandonment of Iraqi socialists, trade unionists, democrats and feminists. If the fake left gets its way, the ex-Baathists and Islamic fundamentalists could easily seize power, leading to Iranian-style clerical fascism and a bloodbath. I used to be proud to call myself a leftist. Now I feel shame. Much of the left no longer stands for the values of universal human rights and international socialism."

    Posted by RonS at 07/22/2005 @ 5:52pm

17. "This is a leftist and liberal web site. Five angry, pointless cranks who hate "libs" and have no other point except disrupting and dominating all communication with their exclusively specious views have ruined it. This sucks."

    I could'nt be happier!!!!!!!

    Posted by aludra at 07/22/2005 @ 5:54pm

18. Before some CRANK intellectual bashes me again about typos....

    I COULD NOT BE HAPPIER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by aludra at 07/22/2005 @ 5:56pm

19. Words cannot express my disappointment at the house's decision. It saddens me deeply to know that the nation that my father fought to protect for 32 years has decided to trade the liberties that we claim to want to spread to the rest of the world for a fear that will soon turn us into something we don't recognize. The government doesn't deserve under any circumstances to have the right to search your home, tap your phone or otherwise violate your privacy without cause or judicial oversight. Well, those of you who believe that we should throw our civil liberties and civil rights out of the window due to the fear of another terrorist attack, you've gotten your wish. But as my mother has always told me, be careful what you wish for....you just might get it. Or, put another way, why should terrorists attack America again when the House vote (and every decision made by the Bush Administration since Sept. 11) clearly shows they've won? The claim from day 1 was that the terrorists envied our freedom. Now, we no longer have it.

    Posted by edwriter at 07/22/2005 @ 6:07pm

20. EDWRITER: What freedom do you no longer have? We have more freedom here in the United States than anyone ever had in the history of the world. You think the terrorists will not attack because the Patriot Act has gotten them what they want? What they want is the right to throw acid in the faces of unveiled women. What do you think it is going to be like if we do nothing and let these fascists set off a nucleur device that kills millions?

    Posted by RonS at 07/22/2005 @ 6:12pm

21. Rons, we do no not have more freedoms than anywhere else in the world. Ever hear of Canada? Holland?

    Posted by Daniel Rubin at 07/22/2005 @ 7:00pm

22. Duh! Are you serious? Everyone knows Canada and Holland are not about "freedom". Come on Canada speaks French! That means that they "hate freedom"! And Holland... jeez! Wid' all dem' drugs and prostitutes... I mean we might have to get Congress to pass a bill or sumtin' like we did wit' French-Fries (aka "freedom fries"). Let's see... lets call Netherlands "cocaine" Bush-Crack and the Amsterdam prostitutes... well I guess the same would apply... ;->

    Now for dem' freedom hatin' Cannucks... let's call that pre-Patriot-Act C/S/E (Canadian Security Establishment) Esch-elon base just south of Ottawa (...STILL used to spy on Americans to circumvent the Executive order against domestic spying)... lets just say... Bush-Crack... HEY! it works on so many levels...

    Now let's think about those freedom-hatin' CITGO-gas-station-ownin' oil-hungry Venezulians!!! Fox News said they are freedom-haters too so we need to think up some inane quip and try and get a Constitutional Amendment or somethin' for it too... I know let's get Condi to fake up some voice-chatter intercepts and creative photo-intel' like Rove, Dubya', and Rummy talked Colin in to doing at the U.N.! (You know... like the way Roverer innocently burglarized that freedom-hatin' Dem' office and faked up those beer invites on der' letter-head, and the way he was a student of Tricky-Dick (R) Nixon's dirty-trick maestro "Segretti", and the way Rummy (et al) did during ReaganGate with (D-TX) Rep. Charlie Wilson and (R-UAE) Rep. O.B.L. in the late '80's...) Then we can invade the Hades out of der' freedom-hatin' posteriors... in the words of Rep. Charlie Wilson... "yhee-haww!!!"

    SIC SEMPER TYRANNUS AND FREEDOM-FRIES!

    Hey I can be just as vacuous as you... Spooky

    Posted by spooky_sr at 07/22/2005 @ 7:57pm

23. Duh! Are you serious? Everyone knows Canada and Holland are not about "freedom". Come on Canada speaks French! That means that they "hate freedom"!

    Oh yes, and Bushies care so much about "freedom" of the Iraqi people, people whom they wouldn't allow to break the thresholds of their homes, much less shine their shoes. Just ask George "The U.S. Will Not Engage in nation Building" Bush!

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/22/2005 @ 8:19pm

24. Speaking for the "cranks", while some may well have come here to disrupt the discussions, that is not (and has not been) my intent or purpose in participating in the conversations on this board. I happened upon this site in reading Mr. Nichols article on Judge Roberts (linked from realclearpolitics.com) and found some of the discussion to be interesting and worth participation. I understand that this is a "liberal" "left" publication and website; however, that should not mean that people with opposing political philosophies cannot have rational and well-stated discussions regarding important issues. That has certainly been what I have tried to do since coming here.

    Quoting language from this website, "Please refrain from straying off-topic and making personal attacks. Your comment may be edited or removed at the discretion of Nation staff. Our goal is not to stifle DEBATE but to keep it relevant." It seems to me if everyone on this website was all of the same political persuasion, there would be very little "debate" at all. Such "preaching to the choir" is a problem that haunts both conservatives and liberals and to continue to maintain such insular and incestuous discussions leads to a lack of understanding by people on either side.

    If you wish to have me booted, you know what my screen name is and can provide it to the system administrator. However, until such time as that happens, I will continue to offer my opinions where I feel they are warranted.

    Posted by scronin at 07/22/2005 @ 10:53pm

25. "He that is willing to give up freedom for security deserves neither." - Ben Franklin Ain't it the truth. But then, the Constitution doesn't specifically mention cell phones, so I guess it must be okay to bug them. Or so Thomas would rule...

    Posted by atmur01 at 07/23/2005 @ 03:47am

26. Indeed, as "aludra" says the "cranks" couldn't be happier about having successfully disrupted a progressive discussion group, one which had the potential to function as an important forum for the kind of strategy and tactics the left needs to engage in in order to succeed.

    This almost got off the ground on several occassions but then was nipped in the bud by the crank infestation which may very well have been consciously designed to do just that.

    There is an important lesson here: the right understands that politics is about power-how it is competed for, achieved, and exercised. And part of political power involves having effective channels of communications. Insofar as you are able to disable your opponent's communications, force them to engage in irrelevant, pointless and unwinnable debates, you have achieved a real victory.

    It is a serious mistake to fail to recognize what the cranks' real intentions are and our failure to do so both here and in the wider political context has a lot to do with why we are where we are.

    Posted by john.halle at 07/23/2005 @ 08:04am

27. ...and the strategic use of sardonic invectives, as I have been doing here (...hello... McFly? or Mr. Collins), to lampoon the "Rights" specious arguments here. I mean "they" come here to strategically disrupt free speech, which I hope everyone has noticed by now. They do this through strategically lowbrow nonsense, and even a little DoS attack last night. What's that? Another immature Rovian temper tantrum? One must see their "Donald Segretti-esk" game plan to fight unfairly through distraction, persuasion, changing the subject, and influence. PATRIOT ACT II is very critical to their "master plan". They need your tactic approval for this thing to work. Therefore: "Capture their minds and their hearts and souls will follow…" - now who said that?

    Now back to abject reality: Ben Franklin??? Now that's just another dirty "freedom-hater"! Is there anyway we can invade his country... viva la Patriot-Act Part-Deux

    [Sorry folks couldn't resist the glib moment]

    Spooky

    "What is that Scotty... a Borg disrupter? Aye Captain... and a spooky one at that too..." - NEXUS-PRIME - Star Trek CCDXXII

    Posted by spooky_sr at 07/23/2005 @ 09:48am

28. ONTOPIC: Alberto Gonzales on the Patriot-Act "Open to Suggestions" [cnn.com]

    OK let me set the record straight for those less fortunate hypo-gestalts on both sides of this PATRIOT-ACT debate! I, Spooky, am an avowed Bush-Basher! I have NO known political affiliation, I am aware of. I am deliberately lampooning the Right with major sarcasm to expose how incipient, vacuous, and OK "stupid" their specious arguments are! Why am I a Bush-Basher if I am not a Leftie, liberal, or a Democrat? Because I seem to be from the abject few that notice the "handwriting on the wall" or the "forest amongst those pesky trees" that SOMETHING is up! I want to expose it so we sacrificial lambs at least go to the NeoCon meat factory sleuce-gates with a fighting chance... Said in a mocking Alberto Gonzales Spanish accent: "OK ju' got eet' now me' compadres? No soy uno de ellos – entienda???!!"

    "SCREWools [i.e. schools] who needs ‘em? I don't and look where it got me today…" – The under-educated and bombastic Rush "Fat [dittohead], Dumb, Non-sober, and Happy" Limbaugh

    Posted by spooky_sr at 07/23/2005 @ 10:27am

29. OK here's one without much sarcasm:

    RON said on 07/22/2005 @ 6:12pm: "EDWRITER: What freedom do you no longer have? We have more freedom here in the United States than anyone ever had in the history of the world."

    Try reading EDWRITER's post again, Einstein... He tells you in the first few sentences!

    "You think the terrorists will not attack because the Patriot Act has gotten them what they want?"

    What are you going on about??? I guess you haven't heard we don't need a PATRIOT-ACT because domestic spying has been ongoing LEGALLY unabated since the Nixon administration... There's more to it you ain't seeing... And not meant to either...

    "What they want is the right to throw acid in the faces of unveiled women."

    ROFLMAO... And you know this... how? Of I forgot, you saw it on Fox News. Now that's sum' fair and balanced journalism der' Ron...

    "What do you think it is going to be like if we do nothing and let these fascists set off a nucleur device that kills millions?"

    Now when you say FASCISTS... you are referring to who now? I hope you don't mean your mental-giant "nuc-leur-Bush"... Because we all know he's no fascist dictator, yet... right?

    Bush a dictator? Nah! "Just as long as I'm the dictator... ha ha ha" (nervous laughter with his trademark disingenuous smirk) [transcripts.cnn.com]

    Spooky

    Posted by spooky_sr at 07/23/2005 @ 11:03am

30. Actually Spooky_Sr, if you were a well-read Leftist, you would know that my reference to the "throwing acid in the faces of unveiled women" is from Christopher Hitchens, in an article, if I am not mistkaken, that first saw print in "The Nation." It is also appalling that people who call themselves leftists or progressive have so little understanding of Fascism that they think that Bush is a Fascist and that the terrorists are not.

    Posted by RonS at 07/23/2005 @ 11:19am

31. No, EDWRITER does not say what freedoms the Patriot Act takes away. Have any of you guys even taken the time to read for yourself the Patriot Act, let alone the Downing Street Memo, the 9/11 report, the resolution authorizing the Iraq War, and other key documents, or do you rely on the ivy league leftists from "The Nation" to tell you what to think? (I read too much to have time for Fox News, but I guess creating such stereotypes helps you feed on your hate). And cranks? You guys are more looney than the looney John Bircher rightwing of the sixties!

    Posted by RonS at 07/23/2005 @ 11:27am

32. First of all, Edwriter is a she. I'm an educator and a writer, thus the "ed" Second of all, unlike many of the members of Congress that passed the Patriot Act the first time, I've actually read it and have had most of it explained to me by not one, but three lawyers who have worked with the Justice Department in the past. (Believe me, it wasn't light reading. I still have my copy and share it with the classes that I teach. Any journalist that doesn't have this law memorized backward and forward soon is going to have problems negotiating his or her career...even if they work for Fox News.) Now, maybe it's just me, but any law that allows for sneak and peak warrants, wiretaps without judicial oversight, and general abridgement of speech in the name of preserving homeland security, is a bad law. We're not quite at the level of, say, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan in terms of our lack of freedoms, but anytime that we have a law on the books that says that the government can just roll up into my house based on a suspicion that it doesn't have to explain to a judge or anyone else before doing it, or can tap my cell phone because of whom I may be having a conversation with without my knowing it, I'd say we're on the slippery slope. There are laws in some states that don't allow journalists to tape interviews with people without their permission for news stories, and yet this is allowed? But, I'm sorry. I forgot. The fact that Judith Miller of the New York Times is in jail shows that journalists are held to a higher standard than the federal government and those who work within it these days. That should scare the crap out of all of you...I know that it scares me.

    Posted by edwriter at 07/23/2005 @ 11:42am

33. EDWRITER: I agree that we are a long way from Saudi Arabia or Pakisatan, and a long way from France for that matter. I do not agree with Judith Miller's imprisonment, but correct me if I am wrong, I do not think the Patriot Act was used for that. Also, the Patriot Act empowers the government to take certain actions that it can already take when investigating businessmen, organized crime, and I understand, medicare fraud. It is strange there is this outcry from the Left now that these actions are being taken against terrorists. I think we will survive the extradorinary measures needed to win the war against Islamic Fascism; whether our freedom will survive more Supreme Court decisions like Kelo is more worrisome. Also, critics of the Patriot Act need to say how they would protect us from another 9/11, or worse. There are many who fault Bush for not taking action based on a vague briefing memo before 9/11, but I doubt that any of them would have approved of any actions taken to act on that memo.

    Posted by RonS at 07/23/2005 @ 12:05pm

34. DANIEL RUBIN: Holland? Have you been following the Holloway case in Aruba? Their law is Dutch law. They have been holding suspects for over a month without formal charges. That is not allowed in our country. And look at the laws in many European countries that prevent one from criticizing Islam (which is why Orianna Fallaci had to leave Italy.) You can get prostitutes in Nevada.

    Posted by RonS at 07/23/2005 @ 12:08pm

35. What I think the RIGHT has failed to see is that there are so many totally unanswered questions about the enigmatic incidents¹ of 9/11, and the warnings² leading up to it. Is it possible that the REAL (or really bad) terrorists haven't even "stepped up to the bat" yet? What if (this is hypothetical now) certain people in our, and others, leadership wanted to bring about a new or "different" global system of things that was more conducive to their outrageous economic wealth? Let's say, for the sake of argument, "they" manufactured reality to accomplish that. Come on Nixon, Bush-1, and Reagan did it!³ (We know... Clinton was no saint either!) Well one would have to see that this PATRIOT-ACT is an integral part of that arguably stealthy connivance of the said oligarch cabal above. How? As an enemy-of-the-state (or cabal) early warning system. Not to detect terrorists but to detect political dissent and unauthorized "free-speech" (i.e. The "Bill Maher" statement by the Whitehouse... "This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is.")

    Well if any of this really hypothetical stuff is true then it would mean that the president has opened a 21st century PANDORA'S BOX (GOOGLE it if you don't know this prophetic mythological story). I mean haven't we seen this happening in Fullajah Iraq of late? A place where it was proven by CIA, and Bush's new "super-duper-secret" SSB [cnn.com], there was no OBL terrorist camps, now there is! Has our president inadvertently opened Pandora's Box in an effort to greedily enrich his friends and family? Or did he do it to stand by the well-documented old-oil man's credo: "To maintain 'our' way of life"? As the Republicans had a disingenuous slogan during the Nixon era, and Karl Rove heartily endorsed: "Wake up America!".

    Spooky

    Footnotes:

    ¹ http://www.reopen911.org

    ² "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." [cnn.com]

    ³ WaterGate, IranGate, IraqGate, Operation Air America, Panama (Op Just Cause), Oliver North, Halliburton, Bechtel, Unocal, Union Bank, The Carlyle Group, Arbusto Oil, Saudi Royal Family Alliance, etc., etc., etc. (You have GOOGLE don't you?)

    Posted by spooky_sr at 07/23/2005 @ 12:16pm

36. To reiterate, notice how the argument in the above has shifted rightward onto the grounds of whether Nichols opposition to the Patriot Act is justified.

    This, as the cranks understand, necessarily prevents the discussion progressives need to have and which is the real subject of Nichols piece: namely, why did 43 Democrats sign off on this constitutional atrocity and what can we do to stem the tide of future capitulations to the right wing agenda.

    This is precisely the sort of diversion which the right wing would not allow.

    They understand that politics is not about winning arguments, it is about power. There is no necessary connection between the two. In fact, as the left has repeatedly demonstrated, it is possible to win arguments and loose all vestiges of political power.

    It continues to be obvious, both on this list and elsewhere, that the left is incapable of understanding this basic reality.

    Posted by john.halle at 07/23/2005 @ 12:43pm

37. ROTFLMAO "Christopher Hitchens"??? Wow... you call this admitted substance-abusing British journalist "fair and balanced" in his reporting? I would have only one thing to say to Chris, it's the same thing I would say to Mike McManus, Armstrong Williams, et al: "Did the check clear yet?" I admit Chris hasn't been caught yet, but, as the Tycho CEO Ebbers once said, "...the day is still young...".

    RONS, please notice that I try my utmost to not say anything definitively-leftie so as not to be pinned down to any hard-pro-Left sentiments, albeit, I know I have failed a few times. Suffice it to say I try to caveat most of my diatribe to avoid context-twisters like yourself. Tell me, please, where did I ever invoke the noun/verb "hate". I don't hate you, Republicans, nor Bush. Just because I expose them for what they really are [cnn.com], lift your skirt a little as it where, doesn't mean I hate you. I just want you to come clean and be honest. I know that seems to be impossible for your leaders these days.

    The John Birch Society??? Now that's a real stretch even for you Ron! Let me just say in defense of my credentials is that I am NEW to The Nation and unlike you I am a total fact-checker and do not depend on other people's "cerebral-methane-anal-emanations" like Chris Hitchens, O'Rielly, Shaun Hannity, or Rush Limbaugh. I will from time to time hang on every word of Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, and my hero Joe Biden. I particularly like to listen to my new hero Dick Durbin on CSPAN and how some dolts just totally misinterpreted his "overall" meaning about Gitmo and not our very brave troops (and no sarcasm there!). I like Al Franken (met him once) delightful and funny man but I don't repeat what he says. I met Anne Colson the same night too (she's a very hard pill to swallow but cordial). There is a shortlist of Republican politicos and constituents I will listen to too as some are quite intelligent believe it or not. "Let me just say this about that..." (Tricky Dick Nixon) I am the real deal Ron. I do my own "backgrounders" - I am not a reporter, just wish I was.

    I still think EDWRITER nailed it. SHE said what the freedoms lost were, why can't you accept that? Are you saying I have to actually EXPERIENCE the wrong before I can say the wrong is present? That's just shortsightedness. If a big out-of-control and seemingly angry bull-elephant was approaching you within spiting distance, what are your chances for survival - with no defenses of course? Slim to none, right? The PATRIOT-ACT is a civil-rights disaster waiting to happen (if it hasn't already). Haven't we learned our lesson with J. Edgar Hover (FBI) and his own secret version of the Patriot Act? EDWRITERS examples were not examples of actual PATRIOT-ACT misdeeds, she was just giving background to substantiate the overall thought that our civil-rights freedoms are being eroded away quickly by this oligarch cabal without our (d)emocratic consent. Remember "rule BY the people" Ron? Not rule by neocons or the Bush family...

    Spooky

    PS - Canada and Holland are much freer than America. Face it RONS. Being held longer in jail for being suspected of killing a rich white girl in Aruba is not an example of less freedom. That's just sound jurisprudence in a free society. Freedom to kill rich white girls is not a freedom our founding fathers envisioned. The fact is that this whole Aruba incident is more Bush/Rove "wag the dog" PYSOP BS to temporarily take our attention off the real news... Rove outing the CIA case officer Mrs. Joe Wilson... (giving tricky Karl enuf' time to pour over Exec. Order 12958 [cnn.com] for loopholes). What would happen if the girl in Aruba was a poor black girl from Miami? Would Fox News and its right-wing "money-lovin'" American brethren media be covering it so throughly? I think not... So please stop deluding yourself that Bush is manufacturing a utopia for ALL Americans. He is manufacturing a hell-hole for the "have-not" Americans and a utopia for "his base" the haves!!! Case in point: How many rich white kids like Dubya, Cheney, and Karl went to Vietnam? How many to Iraq. Do the math brother! "Wake Up" as Nixon would say!

    Posted by spooky_sr at 07/23/2005 @ 1:52pm

38. There is a wonderous scientific and spiritual thing going on regarding the human brain. It is called CHOICE.

    The choice to ignore "cranks", the choice to continue your ebb and flow of progressive thought beyond the "cranks", the choice to refrain from whining about the "cranks" to the deteriment of your conversation, the choice to scroll passed the "crank" posts once identified, the choice to answer "cranks" in the third person during a productive thread instead of directly, etc etc...

    When attention seekers receive none, human nature dictates that they seek it elsewhere.

    Posted by Jazzee at 07/23/2005 @ 2:24pm

39. CONTINUING ON-TOPIC: OK John I'll play your crafty game of "false-flag"... "Why did 43 Democrats sign off on the Patriot-Act, "especially the arguably "very bad" parts? Well, as if you didn't know, IMO this particular bill was one of those sneaky ones. One slipped in under another bill just after the emergency times of 9/11 - as if "paper-clipped" to the bottom of another less controversial bill and then speedily pushed through at the end of the day when the Dems' were really not paying attention. They thought it was something else due to its purposely-deceptive "acronym" name. And yes people like (D) John Conyers and others were totally embarrassed for not actually reading the darned thing or having it read to them by their aides. They got "punked" by the "other side" and you would call this true "power". I would call it corrupt stealth and guile. Who says Democrats are smarter than Republicans? John is making up for it big time. Yesterday's CIA briefing to Mr. Conyers (et al) was critically DAMNING to their boy Rove. No amount of damage control is going to save Karl no matter how hard he tries. The Dem's have their sights set now and will do anything to save face. He's got to go. And I don't think they are going to wait for him to digest EO12958 for slick interpretive loopholes. Maybe the NeCons can bring in Donald Segretti Karl's original evil mentor?

    DONT TAKE THIS THE WRONG WAY , as you predictively, strategically, and undoubtedly will). BUT IMHO: You and your friends really need to reexamine your critical need to visit The Nation if you don't want to offer anything more meaningful other than what you have offered. So far, in this particular topic, you have invoked blog rules and what Nichols "true" agenda is as if you were championing his journalistic point-of-view (POV) – to me clearly a false-flag maneuver – look it up as if you don't know what that is. Also attacking my POV is a fruitless endeavor as I have been to many right-wing web sites, been allowed to stay as a new oblique philosophical target, and have held my own, thank you.

    Furthermore, your definition of "power" is macabre to me. IMHO power is not meant to crush the people under your foot like bugs... like some later-day infamous Christoforo Columbo, Henrico Cortes, Gen. George Armstrong Custer, Benito Mussolini, or Adolph Hitler... that is just pure fascism. True power, IMO, is the benevolent leadership of caring leaders who are truly selfless and care for ALL in their domain, NOT what they can selfishly "milk" from it whenever nobody is really paying attention... IMO that's a true 19th century "carpet-bagger" like how Sen. Clinton (D-NY) has been wrongly accused of...

    Spooky "glibly shifting back to the left, just a little..."

    Posted by spooky_sr at 07/23/2005 @ 3:04pm

40. DEFINITION: crank - a whimsically eccentric person.

    Yes JAZZEE, but one must be intelligent enough to actually read through suspect-crankism before he/she makes that subjective value judgement. He/she may be missing out on something mildly interesting, entertaining, or previously unknown. Another POV, no matter how eccentric it is from yours, has got be refreshing. Especially so if one's true listening forte is akin to being a DittoHead.

    Spooky

    "Crank-Yanker extraordinare..."

    Posted by spooky_sr at 07/23/2005 @ 3:25pm

41. ON-TOPIC... JOHN: "...what can we do to stem the tide of future capitulations to the right wing agenda."

    Try writing your Congressperson and DEMAND that they read or have read every bill presented to Congress no matter how insignificant it may seem on the surface. Think more about bipartisan off-floor deals rather than trying to slug it out on the floor like the way the Democrat NASA Committee amendments were poorly presented to Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) yesterday in the House. Demand that they now truly realize who the "true" usurpers of freedom really are and stop letting these power-hungry, slick, politicians get one up on them. Use the filibuster wisely and not be so foolhardy to allow them the "nuclear option" again. Realize who the smarmy Left-"underminers" who call themselves Democrats really are (i.e. hint try looking in NY and CT). The PATRIOT-ACT would have never made it if this was the case. Unfortunately loosing (D-MN) Paul Wellstone was a fatal blow to our wonderful country's (d)emocracy in more ways than one. You can just imagine how Judge John Roberts Jr., if appointed, will play out for civil-rights and other topics. Just imagine if this administration can get the Cons. Amend. passed to allow non-citizens to run for president. Can you see now how being asleep at the switch can be disastrous?

    I hope I'm not over-cranking here. Just want to get my opinion out... And it's hard to know who the players are here without a scorecard... So I apologize if I have stepped on anyone's toes thinking they were someone else. You know how us cranks are... ;-)

    SPK

    Posted by spooky_sr at 07/23/2005 @ 4:04pm

42. STOP SCROLLING JAZZEE AND READ THIS ONE!!!

    Let me just say one last thing before I fade away... When I originally came here, as a NATION newbie just yesterday, it was because of this particular topic and I assumed that it was just a place to vent about the PATRIOT-ACT and the Right's sneaky motives behind it. I am not pulling a "fake left" as Zero would put it. And I was actually looking for a conversation with CYCLOPS whom I truly admire as he has the heart of a diplomat or ambassador - always knows the right thing to say. I was not aware that this was some sort of Internet Democratic Political Action Committee or Group blog as its been characterized by some. That seems counter-intuitive to me for a fully OPEN board. I don't feel great at being identified as one out of five cranks, attention-seekers, or right-wing moles by Liberals who I viewed as "friendlies". From the Right I can stand it, for obvious reasons... I like to post my eccentric opinions on Internet blogs like this and truly thought I was championing the Left to some degree, even though I was not one of them. Well you live and learn... I genuinely would like to hear what the rest of you think about John Nichols thoughts here and therefore will do a General MacArthur for you and "fade away"... OK JOHN and JAZZEE stop cheering now... ;-)

    Posted by spooky_sr at 07/23/2005 @ 5:03pm

43. STOP SCROLLING JAZZEE AND READ THIS ONE!!!

    Let me just say one last thing before I fade away... When I originally came here, as a NATION newbie just yesterday, it was because of this particular topic and I assumed that it was just a place to vent about the PATRIOT-ACT and the Right's sneaky motives behind it. I am not pulling a "fake left" as Zero would put it. And I was actually looking for a conversation with CYCLOPS whom I truly admire as he has the heart of a diplomat or ambassador - always knows the right thing to say. I was not aware that this was some sort of Internet Democratic Political Action Committee or Group blog as its been characterized by some. That seems counter-intuitive to me for a fully OPEN board. I don't feel great at being identified as one out of five cranks, attention-seekers, or right-wing moles by Liberals who I viewed as "friendlies". From the Right I can stand it, for obvious reasons... I like to post my eccentric opinions on Internet blogs like this and truly thought I was championing the Left to some degree, even though I was not one of them. Well you live and learn... I genuinely would like to hear what the rest of you think about John Nichols thoughts here and therefore will do a General MacArthur for you and "fade away"... OK JOHN and JAZZEE stop cheering now... ;-)

    Posted by spooky_sr at 07/23/2005 @ 5:04pm

44. STOP SCROLLING JAZZEE AND READ THIS ONE!!!

    Let me just say one last thing before I fade away... When I originally came here, as a NATION newbie just yesterday, it was because of this particular topic and I assumed that it was just a place to vent about the PATRIOT-ACT and the Right's sneaky motives behind it. I am not pulling a "fake left" as Zero would put it. And I was actually looking for a conversation with CYCLOPS whom I truly admire as he has the heart of a diplomat or ambassador - always knows the right thing to say. I was not aware that this was some sort of Internet Democratic Political Action Committee or Group blog as its been characterized by some. That seems counter-intuitive to me for a fully OPEN board. I don't feel great at being identified as one out of five cranks, attention-seekers, or right-wing moles by Liberals who I viewed as "friendlies". From the Right I can stand it, for obvious reasons... I like to post my eccentric opinions on Internet blogs like this and truly thought I was championing the Left to some degree, even though I was not one of them. Well you live and learn... I genuinely would like to hear what the rest of you think about John Nichols thoughts here and therefore will do a General MacArthur for you and "fade away"... OK JOHN and JAZZEE stop cheering now... ;-)

    Posted by spooky_sr at 07/23/2005 @ 5:04pm

45. I have avoided posting until now. Today is the first time I've seen anyone come out and say that some of the people who post here all the time are just running interference. Good. Here's what to do. Don't debate people who have nothing new to say. People who think "Bill Clinton" or "secular humanism" or "islamic fascism" is an argument starter or, worse, an argument stopper.

    Spooky Sr., this doesn't seem to apply to you, by the way. Dancall and Love Liberty, this definitely applies. When these posters set the agenda the whole thing is as dull as can be.

    Here, I'd like to set out one issue that shouldn't go away in any debate on these topics. When the Democratic party blows it, what should Progressives do? What should they do if the next presidential candidate is a war-supporter, a patriot act apologist, an insufficient supporter of civil rights, a cozy buddy of corporations - what will we do? What should we have done in 2004 - what we did, which was shut up and vote for Kerry, or actually try to hold him to some things that mattered? We need to never, ever stop talking about this stuff. Winning arguments with Dancall is like .... (prize for the best answer)

    As for terrorism and the patriot act, I submit that most of what is done in the name of security in the united states is an insult to the intelligence of any terrorist worthy of fearing in the first place. We'll surely be safe from all the ones who check out their how to make a bomb manuals from the public library (what, you never saw a how to make a bomb manual in the library???)

    Posted by Vic Perry at 07/23/2005 @ 9:18pm

46. SPOOKY SR: I will not dwell on this out of respect for the wishes of other here to stay strictly on topic, but when you reference conspiracy sites like reopen911.org, I can't but help think of the nonsense from the John Birch Society and other conspiracy nuts of the Right and Left.

    Posted by RonS at 07/23/2005 @ 10:18pm

47. I'm glad that Vic and several others on are wising up to what is going on here.

    I also agree with him that the central question for the left is precisely that which he mentions: how to move beyond the perennial lesser evil strategy which the Nation alas (though it should be mentioned, not Mr. Nichols!) has repeatedly promoted as the only "responsible" and "intelligent" option for the left.

    This is precisely the sort of strategic discussion which the cranks have encharged themselves with preventing and which may, I hope, become possible in their absence.

    Posted by john.halle at 07/24/2005 @ 12:25pm

48. Why bother to struggle against the "terrorists" who supposedly "hate our freedom" (as Deputy Dubya likes to say) when the American government (headed by Deputy Dubya) will simply give our freedoms away without a fight?

    I once thought that Gore Vidal had gone too far when he called the American people "among the most easily frightened in the world." This so-called "Patriot" Act, though, just confirms his observations.

    So, to all you "terrorists" out there: If you really only hate us for our freedoms, then you've no need to attack us any more, since we've already given them up.

    Posted by mrmurry at 07/24/2005 @ 11:42pm

49. The intent of the Patriot act as originally written was to give the government extraordinary authorities to aid in the fight against terrorism. By definition, if these authorities were extraordinary, they were also intended to be temporary. Whether or not the original Patriot act was harmful to civil liberties, these authorities should never be made permanent. There is no justification for any part of the Act to not have sunset provisions built into them. What is the harm in having a 10-year limit on these provisions? Hopefully, the Senate will be a little more rational in their deliberations about this bill.

    Posted by lockerc18 at 07/25/2005 @ 09:45am

50. I think the idea of a sunset is a good one, although, I think five years is better. That said, for all the hue and cry over the POTENTIAL excesses of the Patriot Act, they have not come to fruition (on three..."yet").

    The social compact in which we live has always been a balance between freedom and order. Man has given up some of his freedom (or liberty or whatever you wish to call it) as part of the bargain of having a civilized society instead of chaos.

    Notwithstanding Michael Moore's assertions to the contrary, the terrorist threat is real. The terror "war" has been waged against the West for quite some time (and long before a single U.S. military boot hit the soil of Iraq). I am no so naive as to believe that fighting in Iraq insulates us from attack here; however, just as that "front" ties up some of our resources, the same holds true for them as well.

    There are groups, independent and state sponsored, that seek to do us harm. It may be military, political or economic, but they are there and they are a threat. On 9/12/01, this government could have called for the internment of all men of Middle Eastern heritage and shuttered every mosque in the country, but it did not. For all of the POTENTIAL abuses it poses, the Patriot Act is as restrained a war measure as could be imagined. If another 3,000 people are killed by Islamic extremists (or, God forbid, 30,000), the Patriot Act will look like the Bill of Rights.

    Posted by scronin at 07/25/2005 @ 10:49pm

51. To Zero and MrMurry: It is good to hear your voices of wisdom in spite of the rightwing hotair bags. Eventually, the Nation needs to restrict these blogs to subscribers, like myself. As it is now, I cannot tolerate the absurd dishonest garbage put out on these blogs. I enjoy debating factual issues with rightwingers, but the current infestation has no use for facts. These clowns just want to hear themselves talk.

    Regarding the renewing of the Patroit Act, it has made this Gestapo country. And it again demonstrates why progressives have no use for the Democratic Party. It insults us all the time, and then wants our vote on election day. No more.

    Posted by philbq at 07/26/2005 @ 03:13am

52. A final thought: Just like the Cold War against the "commies" was used to justify an attack on civil liberties and free speech, now TERRORISM is being used by the current rulers to attack civil liberties. With unlimited spending on "defense" and "security". And the current politicians are filling the role of Joe McCarthy. It is chilling. No wonder so many people around the world think Bush allowed 9/11 to happen so he could seize power. Just a thought...

    Posted by philbq at 07/26/2005 @ 03:33am

53. I would greatly appreciate someone providing me with a list of names of persons or organizations who have been ACTUALLY harmed by the Patriot Act. The fact that Greenpeace may meet the definition of a terrorist organization does not mean that this law will be utilized against it. Moreover, most of the provisions of this law have already been in place and within the authority of American law enforcement for decades against "other" groups (mob bosses, drug dealers, etc.). Is the implication that terrorists pose LESS of a threat than do these groups?

    Despite the brickbats, I stand by my previous statement. The Patriot Act was/is a measured and restrained war measure. You can look at some of the wartime acts of other presidents as a means of comparison if you doubt my word (Adams - Alien and Sedition Acts; Lincoln - suspension of habeus corpus; "seizure" of Maryland; Wilson - Alien Acts; FDR - internment [as well as imprisonment {without trial} of countless Germans and Italians]). Mark my words, if the country is hit with a major terrorist even again, the detractors of the Patriot Act will long for the day that those provisions were the operative law against terrorism in this country.

    Posted by scronin at 07/26/2005 @ 08:28am

54. "Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither." Words of wisdom still.

    Posted by philbq at 07/26/2005 @ 09:51am

55. Philbq; name one liberty you have had to give up; name a freedom you no longer enjoy; name a government action taken against you specifically or a family member in the name of the Patriot Act.

    I look forward to the list.

    Posted by love liberty at 07/26/2005 @ 11:03am

56. LL: most of the government snooping is secret, thus we do not know what they are doing. Maybe you are such a lover of big government that you trust them completely - I do not. I am old enough to remember Cointelpro, where the govt. illegally spyed and harrassed antiwar demonstrators in the 1960's. This is just as unconstitutional. Real conservatives are opposed to the expansion of govt. power. But I have come to see from our many exchanges that you are not a conservative- you are just a Republican partisan, who has no respect for conservative principles. You sir, are just a Bush dittohead.

    Posted by philbq at 07/26/2005 @ 11:19am

57. LL, google "black hole" + "mdc" (metropolitan detention center). you'll find pre patriot act violations.

    but, if you want a good critique (both left and right) on the legislation, check out the site below:

    http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207

    try not to forget that it does not matter if I have been scooped up and had my rights violated, what matters is if it has happened/could happen to ANYONE we all suffer. all the the philosophers of democracy understood this. why is it that the am-radio right cannot get their minds around this very basic concept?

    Posted by dabar at 07/26/2005 @ 12:11pm

58. To "LOVE LIBERTY"...I cannot understand how someone who would give himself such a name could support the huge expansion of govt. snooping on citizens of this country. That is what liberty is all about: freedom from oppressive government. I guess your pompous self-righteous title is just words. A real conservative who loves liberty would oppose the "Patroit" Act. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) does. I respect him. He is a principled conservative, unlike most Republicans (meaning you, LL).

    Posted by philbq at 07/26/2005 @ 12:29pm

59. The key to the "cranks" is to just ignore them. If you show them no attention sooner or later they go away, just like little kids.

    Posted by Expatriate at 07/26/2005 @ 1:05pm

60. L.L. We have lost our right of privacy. Checked out a library book lately?

    Posted by Expatriate at 07/26/2005 @ 1:13pm

61. EXPATRIATE: No one cares what books you are reading. All of you guys love to bash Bush for not acting before 9/11, but had the government been able to prevented 9/11 by taking the kind of "snooping" allowed by the Patriot Act, would you have supported it? NO.

    Posted by RonS at 07/26/2005 @ 1:55pm

62. I do not wish to attack "LOVE LIBERTY"(he might be a nice guy, alhtough confused about the real world), but I can't stand hypocrisy. If the "Patroit" Act was passed under the Clinton administration, these so-called conservatives would be screaming about oppressive govt. expansion of snooping on citizens. Be honest now for a second,you Bush dittoheads. You know it's true! But you can't be honest or objective even for a second, can you? And that is why I say I respect conservatives- but there aren't many among the Bush faithful, none among the rightwing lunatic fringe who infest this website.

    Posted by philbq at 07/26/2005 @ 2:19pm

63. Typo: Patriot

    Posted by philbq at 07/26/2005 @ 2:53pm

64. Philbq: thanks for your clarifying comments. I do truly love liberty and even though a republican supporter for over 40 years, I have had my disagreements many times with policies and attitudes I dislike.

    But my real point regarding the Patriot Act is that I see a need for more stringent investigative powers while not wanting my ability to move and/or speak constrained unnecessarily (there are allowances in the constitution for suspension of liberties-see Article 1 Sect 9 sub paragraph 2 [The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.]

    There must be in place practical measures and intelligence gathering authorizations in place to as much as possible, prevent another 9/11 or the rash of suicide bombings we are witnessing in other nations.

    One of the safeguards we maintain to prevent dictatorial power in our government is the 2nd amendment. Now, if Bush or anyone else moves under the guise of terrorism threats to eliminate this right, then I agree we have gone way to far since we have no means for the people to resist.

    added note to expatriate:No I haven't checked out any library books lately. I either buy mine, borrow from a friend or utilize the internet. Libraries are quickly becoming a dinosaur in this world.

    Posted by love liberty at 07/26/2005 @ 8:08pm

65. I believe in reading the ACLU link provided by Dabar and the comments of others, it would be wise to go back and read the critical section of the Patriot Act that everyone seems to be up in arms about. Sect 215 is the pertinent section (as also noted by the ACLU)

    SEC. 215. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT. Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended by striking sections 501 through 503 and inserting the following: `SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS. `(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution. `(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall-- `(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and `(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. `(b) Each application under this section-- `(1) shall be made to-- `(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or `(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and `(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. `(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section. `(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a). `(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section. `(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.

    Two important points which mitigated my concerns from the time this act was proposed:;

    1.They still require a warrant signed by a Federal Judge

    2. not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. this one is vital to the concerns expressed on this blog.

    so, if anyone says they are targeted because they are protesting the administration (and I don't say someone may not try), they still have to convince a Fed Judge there is more reason than just speech.

    It would be good to hear some constructive thought on how to achieve the necessary intelligence activities from this site if you don't have the authority granted under the Patriot Act. The conundrum is what keeps even many Dems in Congress reluctantly supporting the PA.

    Posted by love liberty at 07/26/2005 @ 8:21pm

66. sorry for the grammar error on my italics..too rushed

    Posted by love liberty at 07/26/2005 @ 8:22pm

67. This is my first post, so be kind.

    I am always shocked when I read that someone truly considers that trading liberty for security against terror is a good deal. The argument fails on many levels.

    A) There is no such thing as security against terrorism. Israel has, for years, clamped down on a poor, downtrodden and completely encircled population that is under severe controls, and even with American dollars and guns, they cannot stop the attacks. This, in a terrirory much smaller than Texas. The fact is, terrorism is effective because they attack where you don't expect them.

    B) The chances of dying (or even being injured) in a terrorist attack are astronomical. Many, MANY more people die in violent crimes, accidental deaths, automobile crashes, etc. I'm not trying to defend terrorism, I just think it's important to keep a certain amount of perspective.

    C) Terrorism is often portayed as a sprawling, global network, but there is actually little to no evidence to support this (I'm not kidding. Do some research on your own, you'll see). The idea that the terrorists "hate freedom" and "want to destroy our free societies" comes from us, not them. Terrorist groups are always crystal clear about their justifications: unconditional support for Israel, American military presence in Saudi Arabia (and now, of course, Iraq), and the general policy of the US towards Arab states in the last few decades. Again, this is no justification to slaughter innocent civilians, but to say that they simply "kill us because they hate us" is irresponible fear-mongering.

    Maybe I'm an wrong, but is just seems so blatantly obvious to me that the government is using a false threat to scrare and control its population into submission, and as a justifcation for an aggressive and dangerous foreign policy that that American people would have never allowed under normal circumstances. It happened during the Cold War (the Soviet Union had no plans to invade us, folks), and they're doing it all over again - but this time it's terrorism, an enemy that can never be beaten.

    Get ready for perpetual war.

    Posted by ScruffyBamboo at 07/26/2005 @ 8:42pm

68. I know I sound repetative here, but in some capacity, we already have exchanged some of our "liberty" for security. That is the essence of the social compact theory. Absolute and total individual liberty inevitably leads to chaos and disorder, so let us dispense with the Mr. Franklin's quote.

    Now, as to the matter at hand...I ask those opposed to the Patriot Act (on the right or the left), what alternatives would you proposed? I see only one REAL alternative to the purported restrictions on the liberties of American citizens and that is a wholesale and complete deportation of all non-citizens with Draconian border control (North and South) to prevent illegal immigration (I believe the latter is necessary anyway as part of any rational national security measure and the Bush Adninistration's blind eye to the border issue is infuriating).

    I know that someone out there will accuse me of being simplistic, but sometimes the best and most viable ideas are simple. Please, if the Patriot Act is not the answer (or an answer), then what is? We cannot maintain a completely open society and expect that openess to not be exploited against us. Therefore, some restrictions must be in place. The ACLU is against the Patriot Act...fine, should the government start profiling for the "types" of persons most likely to commit such acts (hint...male followers of Islam of Middle Eastern descent), the ACLU would be equally opposed to that.

    While Justice Jackson intended for the quote to be used in a different context, the same holds true that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

    Posted by scronin at 07/26/2005 @ 10:28pm

69. thanks scronin for once more bringing some cogent reasoning in followup to my post. As with your question, I also never hear a reasonable alternative put forth by those opposed to the PA.

    Posted by love liberty at 07/26/2005 @ 10:34pm

70. I am sure some would (and will) disagree with your opinion of my post.

    I'll admit the damned thing's not perfect (I am hard pressed to think of a single piece of legislation to come out of that nest of vipers in the last 50 years that was [or was even close]), but those that are opposed to it have come to the debate with nothing in the way of alternative solutions (that includes opponents on the right as well). Do I have concerns for civil liberties (the real ones, not the ones that the ACLU and others have merely created out of whole cloth)? Certainly. However, until such time as someone, ANYONE, comes forward with a viable alternative, the opposition is nothing but noise in the background.

    Posted by scronin at 07/26/2005 @ 10:44pm

71. To Scronin:

    But the point I was trying to make is that no alternative is in fact needed. If a threat does indeed exist, I contend that it is not severe enough to justify slashing constitutional guarantees of keeping the government out of the lives of honest citizens, whom must all, under our chosen system of governemnt, be considered innocent until proven guilty.

    Of course, no one is advocating total and complete freedom (read: anarchy). Law and order is a must. But the great difference between the US (and other "civilised" nations, for lack of better term) and tyrannies is the fact that these basic protections to our freedom, including our right to privacy, is encoded into our laws. This is a key difference, and any compromise opens a Pandora's Box: that maybe our liberties aren't so much a right as a privilege.

    What happens if the terrorists strike again? You said yourself the borders are porous - in fact they can't realistically be defended. We're talking about thousands of miles of mostly deserted wilderness, flanked by thousands of miles of coastline. So say a terrorist does get through, and blows himself up in a crowded subway. What will our reaction be? Will we allow the governemnt even more access into our lives, in order to protect us? What about the next time it happens? And the next? How long until we are a police-state? I'd rather not find out.

    You ask for an alternative to the Patriot Act? If an alternative is needed at all, why not try listening to the grievances of the Arab world? Is it traiterous to suggest that? Would that be bowing down to the terrorists? The fact is, these terrorists are an extremist minority to be condemned, but they do represent a real, widespread discontent in the Arab world about US foreign policy there. Like it or not, our government has been (and is still very much) involved in some pretty sticky stuff in the Middle East. And you have to wonder what we're doing there in the first place - how would we feel if the Iraqi army moved in and told us, at gunpoint, how things are going to be. We seem to have double standards.

    I don't know. Maybe I have this whole thing upside down, but right now my government is scaring me a lot more than Al Quaeda. But I welcome any thought you may have on this.

    Posted by ScruffyBamboo at 07/26/2005 @ 11:54pm

72. RONS: You totally and not surprisingly missed the point of the library book comment.

    Why is it that Clinton was able to thwart so many attempted terrorist actions without the P-act but this clown needs to crush our civil liberties in order to combat terrorists? For those who do not know, Clinton tripled the budget of the counter terrorism dep't while Bush cut it.

    Posted by Expatriate at 07/27/2005 @ 04:59am

73. RONS: You totally and not surprisingly missed the point of the library book comment.

    Why is it that Clinton was able to thwart so many attempted terrorist actions without the P-act but this clown needs to crush our civil liberties in order to combat terrorists? For those who do not know, Clinton tripled the budget of the counter terrorism dep't while Bush cut it.

    Posted by Expatriate at 07/27/2005 @ 04:59am

74. Before the anti Clinton rhetoric starts let me say that like all or most politicians Clinton had his good points and bad points, some things he did were good and other things were bad. Having said that let me point out that Clinton hunted down and captured the terrorists that bombed the WTC the 1st time where as the current administration has no clue where Osama is and then started a war that according to the soldiers I work with is "far worse than Vietnam ever was". The greatest security lapse since Pearl Harbor happened during Bush's watch, yet you trust him to lead you in war and allow him to infringe on your liberties and rights.

    P.S. I have no idea why the last entry posted twice.

    Posted by Expatriate at 07/27/2005 @ 05:25am

75. "You ask for an alternative to the Patriot Act? If an alternative is needed at all, why not try listening to the grievances of the Arab world? Is it traiterous to suggest that? Would that be bowing down to the terrorists? The fact is, these terrorists are an extremist minority to be condemned, but they do represent a real, widespread discontent in the Arab world about US foreign policy there. Like it or not, our government has been (and is still very much) involved in some pretty sticky stuff in the Middle East. And you have to wonder what we're doing there in the first place - how would we feel if the Iraqi army moved in and told us, at gunpoint, how things are going to be. We seem to have double standards."

    With all due respect, the "root causes" of the actions of these terrorists are of little concern to me. The US has given more money to Arab countries than any other. There is an inherent hatred/dislike of the US by the "extremists" due to: 1) the US's support for Israel (which is not going to change...but GWB has gone farther than any other US president in attempting to address the "concerns" regarding the Palestinians); 2) the Judeo-Christian (and non-Islamic) underpinnings of American society; and, 3) the "freedoms" of this society (and most Western societies) that do not conform to the hardcore strictures of the Islamic faith (especially in regards to the treatment and status of women).

    NONE of these things are going to change. In fact, the push by those on the left to remove faith from public life will likely inflame the very hatred that needs to be "addressed".

    Posted by scronin at 07/27/2005 @ 09:25am

76. Also, with all due respect - I think you are confusing ideological differences with grievances.

    2) the Judeo-Christian (and non-Islamic) underpinnings of American society; and, 3) the "freedoms" of this society (and most Western societies) that do not conform to the hardcore strictures of the Islamic faith (especially in regards to the treatment and status of women).not expect a response?

    Again, I think it's just a lot easier to blame ideological diffrences - that's why Bush and Blair refuse to link the London attacks with the failing war in Iraq. Doing so would link terrorism with policy, and we just can't let that happen. Better to simplify things for the masses - we're good, they're evil. Any mature adult knows the world is more complicated than that.

    You mentioned Israel, and the fact the US support for its actions will not stop. unfortunately, I think you're right, and so the terror attacks will continue. We would be wise to remember that the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are both, according the the United Nations, being illegally occupied by Israel, and quite brutally so. In fact, Israel is in violation of more UN resolutions than any other state, including Iraq.

    Last thing - if the terrorists hate us because of the Juseo-Christian underpinnings of our society, why would the secularisation of public life inflame that hatred? Would they not celebrate this? I would think they would be much more concerned if we became a Christian Nation (as many would like to have it now - in blatant disregard to the seperation of church and state enshrined in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers did that for a reason, folks.)

    Again, just my two pennies. I welcome debate on this.

    Posted by ScruffyBamboo at 07/27/2005 @ 12:19pm

77. Sorry for the italics :)

    Posted by ScruffyBamboo at 07/27/2005 @ 12:21pm

78. SPOOKY_SR,

    I have no idea where the quote you inserted came from, but I can assure you I did not post it here or anywhere else. Perhaps there are other bloggers using my nom de plume.

    ~cyclops~

    Posted by cyclops at 07/27/2005 @ 4:27pm

79. From the day Osama's activities gave Dubya the excuse to begin reducing our freedoms,to allow for US torture of detainees, to ride roughshod over the Constitution, and to legitimatize himself (in the eyes of the mostly ignorant) as our leader, Osama won the war against America. This administration's behavior since 911 has been a wet-dream for the terrorists, and a nightmare for those of us with better sense - America's days as a world leader in anything other than terror, and shock and awe, are over.

    Posted by Traesom at 07/27/2005 @ 4:57pm

80. scruffy...sorry I am late in replying...I appreciate your considered response to my post.

    while I do not discount a connection between the recent attacks in Britain and Iraq (I would not consider it a "failure"...a little early in the game to throw in the chips in my opinion), as I mentioned in an earlier post, Islamic terrorism has been waged against the West long before Iraq was on the "hit list", much less having troops there.

    I also do not deny that the world is more complex than it is sometime portrayed; however, I am sure you and I will disagree on exactly how much grey area exists.

    My point regarding secularization was the Islamists look to supplant Judaism and Christianity with Islam, not eliminate religion altogether. As abhorrent as those religions are (as not the "true" faith; therefore, the faith of the infidels), the absence of any faith is exponentially worse.

    Being brief tonight...long day and a long day tomorrow. I am sure I will drop by. Until then, have a good evening.

    Posted by scronin at 07/27/2005 @ 10:34pm

81. Oh crap... just like McArthur... he does come back! What's the rambling quasi-crank gonna' say now...

    I enjoyed reading all of the posts since I left. I thank the "Spooky_Sr-friendly" posts. It was encouraging. I think John and Jazzee are rolling their eyes right now. I apoligize for attacking John as if he were a RIGHTIE... my bad, I'm a rookie... Whadda' ya' gonna' do?

    At least I accomplished my goal to get CYCLOPS to periscope but just for a moment to talk to him about general stuff & things. Now all he has to do is act like Allan Turing and analyze the enigma... huh wha' the...? Oh well... I hope its not too difficult to accomplish... We'll see.

    Anyway let me shoot my mouth off again about this P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act thing. IMO we don't need it and never needed it. Its like a third teet on a bull! We already have a very aggressive, albeit slightly illegal, domestic "chatter" intercept operation since the Reagan administration headed up by NSA. Also our opaque NRO organization supplies domestic visual sat-imagery to the alphabet soup (i.e. NSA, DoD, CIA, DIA, SSB, etc.)

    IMO one example of the PATRIOT act's potential undocumented abuses will or already is the circumvention of the dual key-escrow configuration of the clipper-chip skip-jack project¹. Its not well documented but in other words all of your recently purchased PC's, notebooks, PDA, cell-phones, fax machines, etc. or whatever your reading this on, including mine, has a special I/O chip on the motherboard called the MYK-78² trap-door chip which can be remotely activated or addressed³ via a Trojan-Horse Virus, LAN, Internet, modem, power line, or radio signals designed by AT&T Secure Communications. There's no way for the average geek to dig it out as it is too embedded, hardened, hidden, and undocumented by the mfg. It actually has nothing that much to do with true data-encryption like putting your SN# on the end of an encrypted data stream nor was it tabled by the legislatures as previously advertised (ever heard of Executive Session?). Its all in the semantics. They want to actually bypass your "devices'" intrinsic digital-encryption not your self-encrypted codes and cypher stuff. The former takes care of the later by tapping directly into the "horse's mouth"... don't ja' know?

    The safeguards against it's abuse was key-escrow (i.e. two separate DOJ law-enforcement bodies, one being a magistrate, have to agree to activate it. Used to be the NIST and TREASURY). PA-II does away with that bothersome crap. They can turn it off and on at will. They just have to know what your chip's serial number is. That's just my opinion of course... could be wrong. I'm not revealing anything secret as this stuff is in the public-domain!

    RE: repopen911.com - I don't subscribe to this websites politics. I just saw these guys' video (and another reporter named Alex Jones) on local community cable and I was absolutley floored by what these guys gleaned from just analyzing raw news media file footage video and testimonies from other eyewitness and video sources that anybody in the media could have done if they only desired to do so. I still can't fathom the enigma at the Pentagon, the Ohio vs. Pittsburgh "Twilight Zone"-like jet landing, and the surprising WTC close-ups of the 2 ill-fated planes? This stuff is in the public domain like Mike Moore's stuff. How can you ignore something that is also available on the RIGHT's news media website archives? Are you saying that someone faked all of these volumes of archival data to just get us cranks to make up C.T. (conspiracy theories)? Something is rotten in Denmark or Washington DC and you need to wake up! You just can't lightly skim through data like this and summarily label it crank C.T. Either you don't know what your talkin' about or you are trying to spread disinformation through your blanket unresearched denials...

    SPK

    REFERENCES:

    ¹ Clipper-Chip - Natl. Institute of Technology - http://csrc.nist.gov/keyrecovery/clip.txt

    ² MYK-78 is manufactured by VLSI Logic, and programmed with the algorithms and keys by Mykotronx at a facility in Torrance, CA

    ³ One example of how "they" could possibly address your PC's motherboard components remotely is the Intel Pentium CPUID program, albeit less remote when you do it. Read their PDF doc on this and if you are brave enuf' get your CPU's ID num. This will prove that the MYK-78 is equally as remotely addressable: http://www.intel.com/design/pentiumiii/applnots/245125.htm

    (FYI - I am NOT saying that Intel's CPUID has anything to do with Clipper technology.)

                      f a d i n g... a w a y... n o w...

    Posted by spooky_sr at 07/27/2005 @ 11:10pm