Posted on 12/16/2005 11:01:20 AM PST by Wuli
The three unpatriotic GOP Senators who joined the Democrats in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory today, by voting against ending a filibuster of the renewel of the Patriot Act were:
Chuck Hagel (Nebraska), Lisa Murlowski (Alasaka) and John Sununu (New Hampshire).
These people need to be told in no uncertain terms that we will hold them personally responsible for the terrorist acts that occur as a result of the resurrection of the intelligence walls and investigation restraints that will be put back in place against our terrorism investigations.
What is particularly shameful for these so-called GOP Senators is that on the day following the elections in Iraq, they helped elevate the story of the day to the defeat of the patriot act, and the selling of that story as a defeat for Bush and the GOP, instead of the defeat of the security of the American people that it really is.
Thanks Hagel, Murkowski and Sununu for your contributions to your party's political emasculation at the very time it is succeeding in the WOT and the war in Iraq. The Democrats could not ask for better friends. You are disgusting.
Hagel's offices D.C. Tel: (202) 224-4224, Lincoln Nebraska Tel: (402) 476-1400, Scottsbluff Office Tel: (308) 632-6032, Omaha Office Tel: (402) 758-8981, Kearney Office Tel: (308) 236-7602; Email with his webform at http://hagel.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home
Murkowski's offices D.C. 202-224-6665, Anchorage Office 907-271-3735, Fairbanks Office 907-456-0233, Juneau Delegation Office 907-586-7400, Kenai Delegation Office 907-283-5808, Ketchikan Delegation Office 907-225-6880, MatSu Delegation Office 907-376-7665, Bethel Delegation Office 907-543-1639 or Email with webform at http://murkowski.senate.gov/contact.cfm#form
Sununu's offices D.C. (202) 224-2841, BERLIN (603) 752-6074, CLAREMONT (603) 542-4872, MANCHESTER (603) 647-7500, PORTSMOUTH (603) 430-9560 or Email with webform at http://www.sununu.senate.gov/webform.html
George W. Bush won't be president forever. What if Hillary's elected in 2008 (God Forbid!!!)? Look at the havoc she's wrought with the FBI files she's already seen and copied...can you imagine her with the Patriot Act at her disposal?
Patrick Henry was an old curmudgeon, but he was right and respected. Alaska has set itself up quite a bit of freedom: privacy is constitutional in this State. We really mean it.
Actually, they ARE the patriotic Senators. If you think otherwise, and if the bill passes, just wait until Hitlery gets hold of it in 3 years.
The Bolshecrats deserve praise for defeating this bill, even, if it is against their own interest. The next Bolshecrat president will apply it to the greatest terrorist nation on earth, giving, bring the troops home now, new meaning, assuming there are enough left, not standing at the barricades.
RINO Senators weigh the same as a duck?
BUUURRNNN Them!
These are the same people who gave us McCain-Feingold; their regard for rights leans to the rights of terrorists and not the rights of their opponents.
FBI filegate, IRS audits, Travelgate, rule by executive order..Clinton fancied himself a king, and the press refused to calll him on this. That is why Hillary wants the job.
Hagel, Murkowski and Sununu - three Patriots!
BS as Bush's support applies to Murkowski. The Pres has no coattails in Alaska. Party affiliation is not a major factor in Alaska; in fact, it has no bearing on local elections at all and not much in State elections. The character of the candidate, as well as we can know it, does count.
Explain please?
Just what is it that you (mistakenly) believe the Patriot Act does that prior law did not permit, and how? Have you read the Patriot Act and do you understand what the law allowed before the Patriot Act. I think you are dealing with Patriot Act myths and not the facts.
Most of the investigatory means in the Patriot Act were previously legal for domestic organized crime investigations with court approved warrants and under the Patriot Act became legal for terrorism investigations with FISA court approved warrants. Other provisions acknowledged changes in technology, particularly in telecommunications so that a FISA court approved warrant for phone surveillance applies to the terrorist suspect, no matter how many phones they use and switch to. Another provision, approved only for FISA court approved terrorism investigations allows a search to occur before the suspect is informed of it. With this one provision, a number of terrorist computers have been accesssed and terrorist cells dismantled, without jeaproadising the completion of the investigation to the terrorist on whom the "sneak and peak" warrant was issued.
"BTW, we're already keeping an eye out for terrorists and criminals and protecting our security and that won't stop when the Patriot Act does.
You just don't get it do you. Before the Patriot Act we could not combine foreign and domestic intelligence on anyone who was already under a criminal investigation here; even when that person was a foreign terrorist. The CIA may have been seeing one of his comrades headed our way, but becuase we already had him in our hands and under investigation, here, the FBI and the CIA could not tell each other what they knew about the guy we had already arrested. The Patriot Act changed that and let the CIA see intelligence from the Grand Jury indictment process of such individuals and give foreign intelligence to the Grand Jury indictment process - which was prohibited before. There are many ways in which we were previous blind with our hands tied in terrorism investigations. We had to get a brand new wire tap warrant every time a terrorist changed the cell phone he was using. We could get a warrant for his phone but not his email. We could get a warrant for his phone but not VOIP calls thru his computer. We could see one guy working on terrorist plans through the warrant approved phone taps, but even though we knew he was discussing his plans that he documented on his computer, we could not get to his computer, and identify the comrades we heard him talking to, unless he and he was served with a search warrant, allowing him the time needed to tip off his comrades that our finding them was not far behind. With that one provision, we were able to break one of the terrorist cells without our having gotten to the evidence on a computer tipping any of the terrorists off. Each of such warrants requires a FISA court approval. People that think they should oppose the Patriot Act are dealing with legal myths, not the facts.
It won in the house and the Senate and went to conference; then its opponents, having lost in both houses, said they would filibuster bringing it out of the conference if more changes were not made. The Senate vote on its opponents' filibuster made House action mute at this point. But, it won majorities in both houses when it was sent to conference. In fact, the vote against the filibuster was a majority, 52, just not a super-majority.
The Patriot Act has meant that investigators need only get a warrant to wire tap the phones of an individual and do not have to get separate warranst for every phone he uses or switches to. The Patriot Act has meant that the business (including "library") records that were available under court approved warrants for orgnized crime investigations are now available with FISA court approved warrants for terrorism investigations.
The result of using the Patriot Act provisions is in the terrorist plans that have been thwarted. If you need some more 9/11s so you have some completed acts to go and arrest someone for, then please go live somehere else. We cannot afford to wait for an act to be committed before we locate and stop the terrorists. If you want to treat this foreign-based threat as mere citizens, going about their constitutionally guaranteed private business, you are simply willing to endanger all of us, just so that you can feel good about your "rights".
You have no rights or liberty when you are dead.
I get what you are saying. However, you do not get what I am saying.
The objecting Senators passed a version in July, and object to changes made in conference, disclosed to them on November 17, 2005, and objected to, with specificity, in writing, on that same day.
The Patriot Act has meant that investigators need only get a warrant to wire tap the phones of an individual and do not have to get separate warranst for every phone he uses or switches to.
18 USC 2518(4) has that same provision, and it does not sunset.
The Patriot Act has meant that the business (including "library") records that were available under court approved warrants for orgnized crime investigations are now available with FISA court approved warrants for terrorism investigations.
The so-called "library" thing refers to a warrantless process of National Security Letters, not to FISA-court approved warrants. Worst case during a sunsent period is that investigators need court permission to start new investigations - existing investigations are unimpared by the sunsetting.
If you want to treat this foreign-based threat as mere citizens, going about their constitutionally guaranteed private business, you are simply willing to endanger all of us, just so that you can feel good about your "rights".
AFAIK, the sunsetting provisions have zero impact on the ability to initiate investigation against foreign based communications.
Certainly, there are differences between the law if the sunsetting provisions do; vs. the act as it stands, vs. the act as amended by the conference committee. But the gaps aren't as stark as the sound bites intimate.
Not true. The extensions about search warrant procedures cannot be used in regular criminal investigations and will not be approved by the courts in such investigations. They require a FISA court approved warrant and if it is a "sneak and peak" warrant (in which the person is not informed) the judge must see the evidence already in hand, upon which the request for the search is based and must see the nature of the evidence sought by the search. The "without the person's knowledge" (sneak and peak) warrants are limited to terrorism investigations with FISA court approvals. These type of warrants are usually based on a time-sensitive requirement to get to evidence before it is destroyed or moved. In the past, we might have known a terrorist had names and addresses on his computer, but we could not get them without tipping him off with a standard warrant and then him telling his comrades to move.
"any American's internet records can seized by the feds on a showing of "relevance" (as opposed to probable cause)."
More errors. Again, the only internet records that can be "seized" are those for which the "feds" have gone to a FISA court and shown the "relevance" of those records to a terrorism investigation, with evidence about what they already think they know about whom it is they are investigating. Nothing requires the FISA judge to approve the search just because it's requested. "Relevance" is the standard because in a terrorist investigation you do not yet have specific acts committed or planned to be committed for which you can make a "probable cause" foundation, until the investigation itself can collect the evidence. You know who the individuals are and you know their links with other known terrorists, some aleady detained and some still on the loose. By the time you know an act for which you can make a "probable cause" determination, you have finally investigated enough for a criminal arrest warrant based on that probable cause. But, your investigation never would have prevented that "probable cause" act, if you could not discover it until after it was too late. InvestigATING terrorism is about war, and preventing acts of war. It is not about "crime: and waiting for the crime to happen.
"It authorizes the FBI to acquire any business records whatsoever by order of a secret U.S. court and the recipient of such a search order is forbidden from telling any person that he has received such a request...an unprecedented law in this country.
Again more errors. It does not authorize the FBI to acquire any business records "whatsoever". The records sought must be part of a warrant issued by the FISA court. The FISA court is not a secret court. FISA court judges are regular federal judges who are temporarily assigned FISA court responsibilities, on a rotating basis. Congressional committees have oversight responsibility on the FISA court and receive reports on the warrants the FISA judges have approved. The assignment of the judges is not made public for the protection of the judges do to the nature of the investigations for which FISA requests are made. That is not from the Patriot Act, it comes from the laws that established and governs the FISA court. The person is forbidden from telling anyone the warrant has been issued, because (1) they are not the person under investigation, they simply have the records needed, (2)the records requested are part of an ongoing investigation for which formal charges to anyone have not yet been made, (3)so the person who cannot tell anyone about the warrant does not have any right of theirs impacted - they are not the target, and (4)the evidence may, in fact, absolve someone under investigation before any charges are falsely made on less evidence, and therefore (5)the silence imposed on the record keeper protects everyone - the record keeper, the investigation and those for whom the evidence takes them out of the investigation. If that evidence later substantiates a criminal charge, the previous search becomes known.
"The definition of "domestic terrorism" in the Act is broad enough to encompass a lot of political groups (including many conservative ones) that the federal government probably doesn't much care for.
How so? Please explain.
"Domestic police can now share information with intelligence agencies that they've gathered during grand jury proceedings...information about people other than those under investigation..."
Yes, If terrorist "A" is part of a Grand Jury investigation, and as part of that investigation, the "domestic police" have intelligence on one of his comrades, terrorist "B", and the CIA is tracking terrorist "B", those "domestic police" can share that intelligence with the CIA (oh, and the other way as well). Even if that intelligence helps with investigations, foreign or domestic, concerning terrorist "B", it would require other legal actions to obtain the arrest and detention of terrorist "B", for which that intelligence sharing would be part of the collection of evidence. Why should any American citizen for which such evidence could not exist, be concerned about the sharing of this intelligence? In what court do you think a grand jury process would permit this sharing purely political purposes?
"tell me where Congress gets the authority".
From the historic an ongoing understanding of Article I, Section 8 wherein Congress has the authority to "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repeal Invasions"; and "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof", by which Congress has derived the basis of the ongoing changes to the means for carrying out the modern requirements of the foregoing referenced provision. It is from the second part by which congress authorized the modern changes to implementing the first part; including the standing army, our intelligence services and much more. Why don't you just look at how the FBI was brought about, if you'r worried about a "constitutional" basis for the Patriot Act. Either the Patriot Act is "constitutional" or the entire FBI is not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.