Hagel, Murkowski and Sununu - three Unpatriotic GOP Senators

Murkowski is still new to the Senate and hasn't had the opportunity to do the big things. Same for Hillary for that matter. That will come in time. But, she is very capable in the Senate environment and is looking out for Alaska's interests, even those interests that seem kind of small but contribute to the big picture.

I wrote to her about a matter and got a letter back in a short time. She understood my concern and the matter quite well and expressed herself quite well. As far as I am concerned she has what it takes, even if some of her projects are from the bag of liberal reforms.

We have all been watching the Gov closely since he appointed his own daughter, which is not technically nepotism, but was a bad move politically. He has plenty of opposition, especially on his Natural Gas Pipeline plans, which conflict with other pipeline proposals, but he is moving ahead and I am sure his plan will prove out.

"1) Defendants have no automatic right to bail, guaranteed by the Constitution, but must now prove that they are NOT flight risks, rather than the government having to prove that they are.

Judges were able to deny bail, when they accepted the prosecutor's arguments against it, before there was a Patriot Act.

"2) Federal prosecutors can now leak grand jury testimony to other prosecutors where the defendant happens to be so that they can prosecute him there.

Yes, in the investigation and prosecution of terrorist cases, intelligence gathered from one investigation is permitted to be shared with prosecutors working on other terrorist investigations, when that evidence is related to someone who is the subject of that investigation. So, if in the Grand Jury process to indict terrorist "A", we learn that terrorist "B" was the engineer making the bomb, the the CIA or another prosecutor working on an investigation of terrorist "B" can be told about that evidence. And, a good thing that is too. Of course, that is only "evidence" and on its own it only advances another investigation. Americans who are not involved in terrorism have no reason to be concerned about this intelligenve sharing. It is being done for their security.

"3) Government now has the power to, in essence, write its own search warrant for bank records and other personal property rather than have the oversight of a judge.

Wrong. The government investigators must get a warrant from a FISA court judge; who is under no legal obligation to approve the request unless he agrees with the relevance provided by the investigators. 3) Government now has the power to, in essence, write its own search warrant for bank records and other personal property rather than have the oversight of a judge.

He knows the Patriot Act does not authorize "unreasonable searches and seizures" without "warrants", yet he pretends it does. Maybe he just does not like the FISA court, from whom search warrants on terrorism investigations must be obtained.

He disagrees with the "relevance" standard when it comes to intelligence sharing, to and from prosecutors and to and from the CIA, as opposed to the "probable cause" standard in regular criminal prosecutions. He ignores that this provision is not extended to regular criminal prosecutions and only extended to terrorism investigations. He also ignores the nature of the acts under investigation. Terrorism investigations are about war, and preventing acts of war. It is not about looking at a criminal act, a bombing, that has already occured. When a murder, or a bombing occurs, you have the evidentiary basis for "probable cause". In the middle of taking down a terrorist cell you have "relevance" to concerns about acts that have not yet occurred, acts your are trying to prevent. The standard is different due to the nature of what you are trying to do. The fact that actual warfare has been brought to our domestic environment does not change the fact that it is warfare, and defense with which the Patriot Act is designed, not run-of-the-mill "crime".

I do not know why anyone complains about factual evidence from one investigation being used in another investigation. It is true and was legally obtained in the first place, why should those facts be denied. I have never accepted the idea that the "adversary" nature of a court proceeding, and all its accoutrements, should take precedence over the submission of truthful facts, legally obtained. I do not think innocent people are concerned about this concern of Napolitano's.

Napolitano objects to the fact that in an ongoing terrorist investigation, and only in those investigations, we do not what the keeper of records, for which appropriate warrants were obtained, from publicizing to the suspects that we had served those warrants. First, the records keepers rights have not been infringed, they are not the target of the search, the records being sought are not about them, they are suspected of nothing illegal in keeping the records. The warrants are issued in ongoing investigations and the "evidence" searched could just as well "absolve" the suspect in the investigation as provide grounds for further investigation; which provides some grounds for not making false accusations public. As part of an ongoing investigation, it is also clear that we do not want to spook a suspect into fleeing when the record keeper makes the warranted search public. Again, this provision is for terrorism, for defense in war against potential terrorist acts, not for "proving" some already achieved "murder".

If the evidence of a true crime is factually and truthfully against you, even if obtained via a FISA court approved warrant in a terrorist investigation and used later in criminal charge, it was legally obtained and your rights have not been offended. Napolitano is simply concerned about the traditions of his profession and not essential rights. This is a technicallity of the type only criminal defense lawyers love and with which so many guilty go scott free.

His complaint about "the Justice Department" knowing where you traveled, what you spent, what you ate, what you paid to finance your car and your house, what you confided to your lawyer and insurance and real estate agents, and what periodicals you read without having to demonstrate any evidence or even suspicion of criminal activity on your part" is just plain dumb, because if I want to know all that about you or anyone else, I do not need the justice department in order to do it, and it is all legal.

The rest of his errors coincide with his error about the nature of what the "law" is now required to do - support the nations ability to conduct war against an enemy that is going to wage that war, not "crime" but war here, hiding and living on our soil among our citizens and trying to use all our "freedoms" to hide his activities.

You can let him hide among our freedoms if you chose, but I, and hopefully a majority are not going to allow it.

Yes it is.

It updated a number of powers, strengthening many things that had been done already in organized crime cases with application of those changes to domestic terrorism cases; recognized changes in warrants needed for telecommunications searches, due to the expanded ability of new technology; expanded the sharing of intelligence between FBI and CIA and between intelligence gatherers and prosecutors.

I think the analogy that people are missing is one I gave in an answer to another question. During the cold war the military threat from our adversary was essentially "over there". The Soviets had spies here, but the proper analogy would be as if they had been able to plant operational elements of the Red Army in among our civilian population here; working on plans for acts of sabotage. You can bet that if that had been the case, our ability to search them out would have been even more "draconian" than the minor changes we have with the Patriot Act. Yet that analogy is exactly what we have with Islamic Terrorism. The enemy army is here living and hiding among the civilian population. You have to find them AMONG THE CIVLIAN POPULATION because that's where they are. If you don't like the "invasions of privacy" of the Patriot Act then go find some place to live where the government is not required to find Islamic Terrorists hiding among your citizens.

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.