<p>VP:</p>
<p>You have your laws confused. This is not part of the Patriot Act.</p>
<p>ff: OK, you’re right. I did confuse the names. But the same category of laws and the same sorts of tactics. </p>
<p>I would be much more willing to accept privacy restrictions, detention of prisoners and even torture if:</p>
<p>1) the administration honestly stated the truth about what was being done.</p>
<p>2) the administration gave straight answers to <em>why</em> certain things need to be done.</p>
<p>So, for example, they could have said (at the time it was being done) that:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>We have been questioning KSM and he is not talking. </p></li>
<li><p>We have concrete evidence that he knows about an imminent threat to the US (members of Congress from both parties with security clearance can examine the evidence).</p></li>
<li><p>We have decided that we are going to torture him in an effort to extract the information. We will make sure we do not torture him more than we need to.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>And then later:</p>
<ol>
<li>We have successfully extracted information from KSM by torture and we are happy to report that we were able to avert a terrorist strike due to this information (members of Congress with security clearance…etc as before).</li>
</ol>
<p>Now that would be an honorable way to do it and in keeping with the fact that we are a superpower, not some third world absolutist regime.</p>
<p>Are you holding the administration to the same standard as the Clinton administration? Afterall, it was Clinton who started the program of renditions … in an era that terrorism was not nearly as real of a threat as it is today. Yet, Clinton never announced that they were sending someone to Jordan or whatever … he just did it. </p>
<p>Likewise, the issue of warrantless wiretaps for intelligence gathering has been an established and legal practice for decades. Why suddenly, when we really have a serious threat, does the left want to put restrictions on them? It just doesn’t make sense.</p>
<p>I am not an apologist for Clinton’s administration. Since when did Clinton’s administration become the standard-setting administration? </p>
<p>BTW: Terrorism was a much bigger threat during Clinton’s era than it is today. Al Qaida was extremely powerful and well-organized. Osama was openly threatening the US. Yet, there was very little public will to tackle the threat of terrorism. We had a major major terrorist attack averted during the millennium celebrations. Clinton recognized the threat posed by Osama and tried to take him out by sending some cruise missles his way, but failed. I recall that the Republicans were screaming at him at the time for creating a distraction from what they thought was the most important issue of the day- the Lewinsky scandal. </p>
<p>Later, after Bush took office, the events and missed opportunities leading up to 9/11 have now been well-documented.</p>
<p>There is plenty of blame to go around for terrorism. </p>
<p>But it is not helpful to continue to play this blame game if we are to tackle it seriously. We must move in a genuinely bipartisan manner, while being careful to not let the terrorists scare us into undermining our own freedoms. </p>
<p>“Live free or die” is not just a slogan and it is definitely not a liberal slogan.</p>
<p>“But it is not helpful to continue to play this blame game if we are to tackle it seriously.”</p>
<p>Then you won’t like today’s article in the WSJ :(</p>
<p>"Federal law enforcement agencies considered these individuals so dangerous, extraordinary security precautions were taken at their numerous trials. Courthouse elevators were restricted and no one, including the court officers, was permitted to carry a firearm in the courtroom.</p>
<p>Given all this, why would Bill Clinton, who had ignored the 3,226 clemency petitions that had piled up on his desk over the years, suddenly reach into the stack and pluck out these 16 meritless cases? (The New York Times ran a column with the headline, “Bill’s Little Gift.”)</p>
<p>Hillary Rodham Clinton was in the midst of her state-wide “listening tour” in anticipation of her run for the U.S. Senate in New York, a state which included 1.3 million Hispanics. Three members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus – Luis V. Gutierrez (D., Ill.), Jose E. Serrano, (D., N.Y.) and Nydia M. Velazquez, (D., N.Y.) – along with local Hispanic politicians and leftist human-rights advocates, had been agitating for years on behalf of the FALN cases directly to the White House and first lady.</p>
<p>Members of Congress viewed the clemencies as a dangerous abuse of presidential power that could not go unchallenged. Resolutions condemning the president’s action were passed with a vote of 95-2 in the Senate, 311-41 in the House. It was the most they could do; the president’s pardon power, conferred by the Constitution, is absolute. The House launched an investigation, subpoenaing records from the White House and Justice in an effort to determine whether proper procedure had been followed. President Clinton promptly invoked executive privilege, putting Justice Department lawyers in the impossible position of admitting that they had sent the White House a recommendation on the issue, but barred from disclosing what it was.</p>
<p>It would be a mistake to dismiss as “old news” the story of how and why these terrorists were released in light of the fact that it took place during the precise period when Bill Clinton now claims he was avidly engaged, even “obsessed,” with efforts to protect the public from clandestine terrorist attacks. If Bill and Hillary Clinton were willing to pander to the demands of local Hispanic politicians and leftist human-rights activists defending bomb-makers convicted of seditious conspiracy, how might they stand up to pressure from other interest groups working in less obvious ways against U.S. interests in a post-9/11 world?"</p>
<p>[The</a> Clintons’ Terror Pardons - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120277819085260827.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries]The”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120277819085260827.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries)</p>
<p>vp: Excellent point. How many Republicans today who are hawks on the issue of terrorism would be willing to admit that they were wrong when they chastised Clinton for his actions in attempting to capture and/or kill OBL in the late 90’s?</p>
<p>Clinton never tried to kill OBL. He bombed Iraq attempting to kill Hussein </p>
<p>Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."</p>
<p>[Transcript:</a> President Clinton explains Iraq strike - December 16, 1998](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html]Transcript:”>Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike - December 16, 1998)</p>
<p>"It appears that Bill Clinton may have exaggerated his record when it came to strategizing against Osama bin Laden. /Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball/ take a look at the Inspector General’s report of the pre-9/11 intelligence failures at the CIA and find an interesting nugget. Despite Clinton’s angry assertion to Chris Wallace in last year’s controversial Fox interview, he never gave the CIA an assassination order regarding bin Laden (h/t: CQ reader Mark):</p>
<p>The report also criticized intelligence problems when Bill Clinton was president, detailing political and legal “constraints” agency officials felt in the late 1990s. In September 2006, during a famous encounter with Fox News anchor Wallace, Clinton erupted in anger and waived his finger when asked about whether his administration had done enough to get bin Laden. “What did I do? What did I do?” Clinton said at one point. “I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since.”
Clinton appeared to have been referring to a December 1999 Memorandum of Notification (MON) he signed that authorized the CIA to use lethal force to capture, not kill, bin Laden. But the inspector general’s report made it clear that the agency never viewed the order as a license to “kill” bin Laden—one reason it never mounted more effective operations against him. “The restrictions in the authorities given the CIA with respect to bin Laden, while arguably, although ambiguously, relaxed for a period of time in late 1998 and early 1999, limited the range of permissible operations,” the report stated. (Scheuer agreed with the inspector general’s findings on this issue, but said if anything the report was overly diplomatic. “There was never any ambiguity,” he said. “None of those authorities ever allowed us to kill anyone. At least that’s what the CIA lawyers told us.” A spokesman for the former president had no immediate comment.)</p>
<h1>123. Source, please?</h1>
<p>
</p>
<p>I already provided this in 108</p>
<p>excerpted from [Patriot</a> Act Provisions Voided - washingtonpost.com](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602084.html]Patriot”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602084.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>excerpted from [Question</a> the PATRIOT Act Now Before It’s Too Late - by Ron Paul](<a href=“Question the PATRIOT Act Now – Before It's Too Late - Antiwar.com”>Question the PATRIOT Act Now – Before It's Too Late - Antiwar.com)</p>
<p>
</p>
<h1>123. Well I did a little research (FISA-Foreign Intelligence Security Act) and just kinda packed it in.</h1>
<p>Couple of reasons. 1) My brother and I work in the same company by accident and in different realms but at the same time similar. There are things that neither he nor I can communicate about, even though they important in the minor and major sort of ways to both of us. We only talk in person on visits and only in general terms. Never do we talk even in general terms on computer or telephone. The penalties are severe. 2) I also ran across S’s music teacher who had a son a few years older than mine who does surveillance work on executives. Don’t ask, Don’t tell. </p>
<p>So I will assume as I had previously assumed that communications are monitored. That I should assume the attitude of a citizen in a dictatorship/communist society where personal identity through communication and surveillance cameras at stop lights and stores are there to protect us. Be Happy. :-)</p>
<p>Caught a portion of Obama’s Victory Speech in some arena tonight. The winning numbers are awesome for Obama and the Democrats. I particularily noticed that the Republican voters were one half to a third of that of the Democratic voters. If the National Vote were held tomorrow, the Democratic candidate would win just by numbers. It is the numbers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In DC, Obama got more than 85,000 votes to McCain’s 4,000.</p>
<p>lealdraon,</p>
<p>This is what you wrote:
This is what was in your WaPo article:
</p>
<p>Notice the diiference??</p>
<p>I’m not exactly sure but from the ongoing counts it looked like Obama alone got more votes than all the Republicans combined.</p>
<p>ff, it is you who didn’t notice the difference. Just because it’s the same word does not mean it has the same meaning. Why should an American citizen be thrown in jail by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court?</p>
<p>The point is that laws supposedly put in place to catch foreign terrorists are being used to arrest US citizens without the due process of law that we hold dear and that makes our country special. There’s no provision in the patriot act (unless one was added recently that I don’t know about) that protects citizens and assures them of their BASIC rights.</p>
<p>ff, maybe this will clarify it for you:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>excerpted from [Gore</a>, Freedom and security](<a href=“http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_09/issue_22/opinion_02.html]Gore”>http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_09/issue_22/opinion_02.html)</p>
<p>There’s LOTS more…I recommend reading the whole article for a real eye-opener! It’s dated 2003, so some of these things may have changed since then; not sure about that.</p>
<p>If it were not for some brakes applied by court orders, civil liberties advocates and the democratic majority in Congress, this administration would have just kept trampling on the Constitution and human rights. </p>
<p>Bush/Cheney have brought shame and dishonor upon our country far worse than Bill Clinton’s sexual indiscretions ever did.</p>
<p>[Chafee</a> Endorses Obama - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog](<a href=“http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/chafee-endorses-obama/]Chafee”>Chafee Endorses Obama - The New York Times)</p>
<p>another republican for Obama</p>
<p>“There’s no provision in the patriot act (unless one was added recently that I don’t know about) that protects citizens and assures them of their BASIC rights.”</p>
<p>There’s also no provisions in the Patriot Act that grant freedom of religion either, but that doesn’t mean these rights were taken away. I am still waiting for proof from you that the Patriot Act makes it legal for: “any citizen can be thrown in jail without a trial and without cause, searched without a warrant, etc.” This was your claim and I say it is BS. Prove me wrong.</p>
<p>I’ll even make it easy on you. Here’s the text of the Patriot Act:</p>
<p><a href=“http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/hr3162.pdf[/url]”>http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/hr3162.pdf</a></p>