December 16, 2005
PATRIOTs Shaken, Not Stirred
Democrats in the Senate prevailed in the first vote for cloture; the four previously identified Republicans voted with the Democrats, but they had no other converts. (Bill Frist, R-TN, voted against cloture so that he would have the power to call another vote at any time.)
The vote was 52 in favor of cloture, with sixty needed. Note that there are 55 Republicans in the Senate; subtract the five that voted for the filibuster and you have only 50 Republicans left... which means that at least two Democrats voted for cloture. (I say at least two because there were only 99 senators voting, and I don't know whether the one who didn't vote was Republican or Democrat; if the former, then three Dems would have voted for cloture.)
But so far, not a single story that I've read has identified those two Democrats (see UPDATE a few paragraphs down), although every story has identified the four dissenting Republicans:
Five Republicans voted against the reauthorization: Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, John Sununu of New Hampshire, Craig and Frist. Two Democrats voted to extend the provisions: Sens. Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.
Frist, R-Tenn., changed his vote at the last moment after seeing the critics would win. He decided to vote with the prevailing side so he could call for a new vote at any time.
Why not say who the Democrats who support it are? Could it be that the MSM wants the anti-Patriot position to appear "bipartisan," but they don't want to admit that the pro-Patriot position is also bipartisan? Consider this sentence from the second paragraph:
In a crucial vote early Friday, the bill's Senate supporters were not able to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster by Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and their allies.
The filibuster consisted of four Republicans and forty-three Democrats... but if someone only read the sentence above, he would be excused for thinking the filibuster was more or less evenly divided between the two. Bipartisan!
UPDATE: While editing this post, the New York Times finally broke the embargo on the names of the Democrats who supported bringing the reauthorization bill to a vote. They were Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Tim Johnson (D-SD). I am shocked and very disappointed that Joe Lieberman (D-CT) voted against cloture.
(The Times headline is Supporters of Patriot Act Suffer a Stinging Defeat in Senate; Zawahiri and Zarqawi Call Vote "Promising." All right, I added that last part; but you know they'll be pumping their fists the moment they hear about it.)
This is literally insane. There are only two provisions that keep being cited again and again as why senators just can't bring themselves to vote to reauthorize the Patriot Act: roving wiretaps and subpoenas for business records.
Roving Wiretaps
Prior to the Patriot Act, the FBI could only obtain permission to wiretap a specific phone number. But in today's age of cell-phones, satellite phones, and voice over internet, all a terrorist need do to thwart any wiretap is borrow a phone from one of the other members of his cell.
With roving wiretap authority, however, the wiretap attaches to the person, not the phone number: legally, the law-enforcement agency would have authorization to tap any phone that a particular terrorist suspect used. Again, note that this warrant must be issued by a federal judge; the FBI cannot simply tap a domestic phone call because they feel like it. (There is longstanding authority for the National Security Agency, the NSA, to tap international phone calls, which is what the New York Times breathlessly reports Bush did after 9/11 -- like, duh -- but this has nothing whatsoever to do with the Patriot Act -- no matter what the voices in Sen. Feingold's head say.)
Thus, if a terrorist switches to a different cell phone for each call, each phone can be tapped so long as that terrorist is using it. Perhaps someone out there can explain to me what sacred civil liberty this violates, because for the life of me, I cannot fathom it. How can it be constitutionally acceptable to tap one phone, but not two?
Subpoenaing Business Records
Here is the dreadful, horrible depredation of our "essential liberties" that John Sununu (R-NH) is screaming about; from the Patriot Act, Public Law 107-56, section 215:
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.
Boiled down, this means that the FBI can request that a federal judge force a business to turn over records to the FBI so that the latter can conduct a terrorist investigation... provided the investigation doesn't arise out of some freedom-of-speech issue -- for example, they cannot demand records under this act solely because someone spoke out against the Iraq War.
Here is the gag-order provision:
(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.
Let's see if we can't put on our thinking caps and deduce why, if the FBI subpoenas, say, the records from a flying school at which several suspected terrorists are learning how to fly -- but not to take off or land -- a jumbo jet, it might be important that the flying school not inform the suspects that the FBI subpoenaed those records. Yes, I know it's a toughie; its importance certainly has eluded the finely honed brains of Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Pat Leahy (D-VT), and of course Republicans Sununu, Craig, Hagel, and Murkowski, along with forty other members of the United States Senate.
Once again, we're talking about court-ordered, judge-approved subpoenas, where the information is only turned over to the FBI if the federal judge decides that it meets all the requirements of the act (which are pretty stringent). The only way this can be considered to violate civil liberties is if the Democrats (and four renegade Republicans) actually fear the United States government more than they fear al-Qaeda.
The Dishonest Rhetoric
When Russel Feingold (D-WI) heard that since 9/11, the NSA has actually been doing its job, monitoring international electronic communications (signals intelligence, or SigInt), which it is entirely authorized under law to do, he blew a gasket:
"I don't want to hear again from the attorney general or anyone on this floor that this government has shown it can be trusted to use the power we give it with restraint and care," said Feingold, the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001.
How about this one: if the Democrats succeed in preventing reauthorization of these provisions of the Patriot Act -- and if the United States again suffers a horrific terrorist attack, and thousands or tens of thousands of Americans are murdered in a single, mad act of jihad -- then I don't want to hear again from Feingold, Reid, or any other Democrat demanding to know why we "failed to connect the dots."
Because we will already know why: the Democrats don't want those dots connected; they want another terrorist attack on the homeland, because they can then blame it all on Bush... and gain a little temporary political advantage for 2006. Pick up a seat or two.
Who's with me on this?
Hatched by Dafydd on this day, December 16, 2005, at the time of 2:39 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/329
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference PATRIOTs Shaken, Not Stirred:
» Cell-Phone Replay from View From a Height
If Carter-appointee Judge Harry T. Edwards has his way, soon terrorists will have another surveillance-free avenue of communication: A federal appeals court on Friday challenged the Federal Communications Commission's rules making it easier for law-enf... [Read More]
Tracked on May 8, 2006 7:39 AM
Comments
The following hissed in response by: thirdfinger
When the next 'Smoking Hole' (as opposed to a smoking gun) appears these guys should be made to stand up before God and country, have their heads shaved, an be paraded through the streets like the French did to their collaborators after WWII.
TW: craven, As in what a craven bunch of pretentious bastards they are.
The above hissed in response by: thirdfinger ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://biglizards.net/blog/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 16, 2005 4:01 PM
The following hissed in response by: Stephen Macklin
I think Colonel Nathan Jessup said it best:
"You ******* people. You have no idea how to defend a nation. All you did was weaken a country today, Kaffee. That's all you did. You put people's lives in danger. Sweet dreams..."
[Edited for language. Please be careful, and follow the rules in Reptillian Comment Policy. Thanks! -- the Mgt.]
The above hissed in response by: Stephen Macklin at December 16, 2005 4:53 PM
The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist
Who's with me on this?
i am...and add MSM in with the Dems, since they both clearly work hand-in-hand with each other.
Hopefully, more Americans, especially non-voting Americans, are asking themselves about the lack of news on the Iraqi Vote success.
Apparently there are 33 Senate seats being contested in 2006, and having an influx of new Voters in 2006 would be great, since i suspect that the Dem newbie-base has been tapped out for years now. 2006 would be the perfect time for Americans to wipe out the Democrat Party whilst also sending a clear message to the Republican Party that no Party is now safe.
i had never Voted when Bill Nelson (FL) was elected, so he will have at least one new Vote *AGAINST* him in 2006. i haven't bought a newspaper since 911, and the rest of MSM can kiss my buttocks...if any of them wish to venture into my swamp to do so...so to speak whilst smiling.
The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at December 16, 2005 5:01 PM
The following hissed in response by: stackja1945
When terrorists want to organise they will not be interrupted by any inconvenient laws.
The above hissed in response by: stackja1945 at December 16, 2005 5:22 PM
The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist
When terrorists want to organise they will not be interrupted by any inconvenient laws.
Enough said...
The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at December 16, 2005 6:04 PM
The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist
Ummmmmmmmmmm...
Is preparing someone for a Stoning considered "Torture"? John, what do you think...? Certainly it is not, when compared to being buried up to your chest whilst yore body is in a bag, and then having stones tossed at your head until you die from the many misses.
Personally, i like to show mercy. The bag is not needed if the soon-to-be "Tortured" is rendered unconscious before buring them. And, i prefer to only leave the head exposed (since the head has ears for hearing my first question on it), before turning two PitBulls loose (one Male and One Female)...onto the exposed heads.
i wonder where "Water-Boarding" falls into the above for you? John...?
The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at December 16, 2005 6:30 PM
The following hissed in response by: Stephen Macklin
My apologies. I would not normally leave profanity in someone's comments. I included it as part of the original quote.
The above hissed in response by: Stephen Macklin at December 16, 2005 6:42 PM
The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh
Stephen Macklin:
No prob; just remember -- the asterisk is your friend!
Dafydd
The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at December 16, 2005 6:44 PM
The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist
Liberals are pushing humble me towards Michael Savage. Hey, at first i thought Boortz was "hard hitting". Just happened to catch the end of the Savage show tonight, and it actually was good, i think!?!
Is he, Savage, still dating Barbra Streisand!?!
The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at December 16, 2005 7:17 PM
The following hissed in response by: krkrjak
Oh not to worry any. The next time the bad guys turn several thousand of our countrymen, women, and children into dust and rubbish, the masses will once again demand strong measures be taken to prevent such a thing from ever happening again.I'm afraid this program is going to be repeated over and over for God knows how long. For now score one for the bad guys. Old Muhammad must be turning over in his grave with glee.
The above hissed in response by: krkrjak at December 16, 2005 8:02 PM
The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist
Preparations for a Stoning
i had remembered the above photo, so ran an image search, and came up with it...from here:
Apparently the Máldive Royal Family has one of the first Blogs. OK...just a guess on my part.
Anyway, 'Da future Stone-ie's name might be, Lady Hajiyeh Esmaelvand...
*SCHEESH*!!!
John, that site offers a video showing Stoning/Flogging, and i now wonder if you actually understand "Torture" and/or 'Law'!?! Personally, from what i saw, you have never experienced actual "Torture", and the North Vietnamese were actually quite kind to you. BTW, dig the song at the end, John.
OK...John, how do you now rate "Water-Boarding" to a "Religion of Peace", and the above? You are alive...Lady Hajiyeh Esmaelvand is dead. Are you saying that she was never "Tortured" or that she deserved such a death?!? John, before you answer, remember that you are still alive...
Lady Hajiyeh...Thank You for 'Touching' one such as i...
The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at December 16, 2005 8:05 PM
The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist
Oh not to worry any. The next time the bad guys turn several thousand of our countrymen, women, and children into dust and rubbish, the masses will once again demand strong measures be taken to prevent such a thing from ever happening again.I'm afraid this program is going to be repeated over and over for God knows how long. For now score one for the bad guys. Old Muhammad must be turning over in his grave with glee.
Well said...
After eight years of Bill Clinton, and after what i have seen since W whipped both Gore and the "JFK" wannabe Kerry, i hope you are wrong. The American Left showed their "Colors" within hours of the 911 Attack, and MSM followed. i haven't listened to Michael Savage since seeing his hand on Barbra Streisand's tit...clothed as her tit was!!!
However, Savage did make an interesting point tonight, in the final minute of his show. He was quoting, then offering his opinion, and i shall not try to replicate such...so to speak.
Choices for Americans narrow by the second, even after yet another successful Iraqi Vote...
KårmiÇømmünîs†
The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at December 16, 2005 8:25 PM
The following hissed in response by: antimedia
I'm with you, Dafydd. Right now I'm so angry I can't blog about it. I encourage all of your readers to actually read the Patriot Act. You can get a text copy by going to thomas.loc.gov, click on Public Laws, click on 107, and then 107-51-99. The Patriot Act is Public Law 107-56.
I challenge you to find the word "library" or "libraries" anywhere in that bill. Yet you hear that repeated over and over and over again.
I'm sick and tired of the lies. I'm sick and tired of a Congress that has no courage. I'm sick and tired of politicians who worry more about getting re-elected than they do about protecting this great country and its people from harm. I'm so disgusted I may never blog another d**n word.
The above hissed in response by: antimedia at December 16, 2005 8:46 PM
The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist
antimedia,
We all need to relax. The Democrat Party has been losing election after election, and *THEIR* MSM is at the point of wasting Gringo Dollars before they bottom out.
Voters and the lack of 'vOtErS' are the problem. i want the Dems, and weak-kneeded Rep politicians to keep running their mouths!!! Forget the records, but remember what they say, do, or don't do. However, the Democrat Party must be stopped in 2006, or America will start experiencing pruning Islamic style before 2008. Boils down to choices, and far too many Americans support Radical Islamism, in my opinion. Be a Boy Scout, and prepare for what America chooses in 2006.
Simple as that...
The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at December 16, 2005 9:12 PM
The following hissed in response by: The Yell
I'm with you, Dafydd.
Anybody else remember the Doll Letters case from "The FBI Story" by Don Whitehead?
http://www.fbi.gov/page2/may04/052104dollwoman.htm
Letters from US addresses to an address in neutral Argentina through US mail, intercepted by the FBI... I can only imagine what these clowns in the Senate would think of that!
The above hissed in response by: The Yell at December 16, 2005 11:41 PM
The following hissed in response by: FredTownWard
The 2006 elections are over, and the Democrats just lost. Big Time. Probably the 2008 ones as well. They're apparently so clueless that they think they are winning on this issue, but they are, politically, dead, dead, DEAD.
It was risky enough to oppose the war in Iraq and skate perilously close to rooting for the enemy to win, but now they have publicly come out rooting for Al Qaeda. Filibustering the Patriot Act to death? Complaining about warrentless wiretaps of people with Al Qaeda connections? Threatening to filibuster the Defense Appropriations Act and thus defunding the soldiers in battle overseas, over drilling in ANWR?
The only question is how badly will Democrats be crushed in 2006, not whether they will be crushed.
The above hissed in response by: FredTownWard at December 20, 2005 1:40 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)
(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved
)
