Patriot Act renewal fails in Senate.

[spencerjrus]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/16/patriot.act/index.html


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate on Friday rejected efforts to renew expiring provisions of the Patriot Act, dealing a major blow to President Bush and the Republican leadership.

Senators on both sides of the aisle argued that some of the act's provisions infringe on civil rights. The bipartisan group proposed a three-month extension to continue debate and amend certain provisions, but the Senate also rejected that proposal Friday.

The Senate needed 60 votes to override a filibuster and end debate, which is called "invoking cloture." Cloture would have brought the Patriot Act to a final vote, allowing the Senate to renew it by a simple majority.

But only 52 senators voted to cut off debate; 47 voted against cloture.

The move lays the groundwork for a high-stakes showdown.

Bush has said he would veto a three-month extension, arguing it would be inadequate. But without an extension, 16 provisions could expire at the end of the year. There's also the possibility the Senate could still manage to bring the Patriot Act to a vote before the December 31 deadline.

The Bush administration had lobbied intensely for making the provisions permanent. Top officials, including Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, had called lawmakers in hopes of swaying them to the administration's position. (Read what Bush has to say)

In a statement after the Senate's vote, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the provisions "are essential to our efforts in the war on terrorism and their loss will damage our ability to prevent terrorist attacks. Our nation cannot afford to let these important counterterrorism tools lapse."

The act, created after the September 11, 2001 attacks, allows the government broad authority to investigate people suspected of involvement in terrorist activities. Controversial measures include those allowing the FBI -- with a court order -- to obtain secret warrants for business, library, medical, and other records, and to get a wiretap on every phone a suspect uses.
Secret authorization?

As the Senate gathered Friday to debate whether the government had abused its authority, a major news story played a critical role.

The New York Times reported Friday that Bush, months after the September 11 attacks, "secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials."

Sources with knowledge of the program told CNN the report is accurate.

The report was "very, very (problematic), if not devastating" to the renewal effort, according to Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, who helped negotiate a compromise with House leaders on extending the provisions.

During Friday's session, senators held up copies of the New York Times report as a sign that the government could not be trusted with all the broad powers laid out in the Patriot Act. (Read about the report)

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said he had been unsure the night before how he would vote. "Today's revelation that the government listened in on thousands of phone conversations without getting a warrant is shocking and has greatly influenced my vote," he said. "Today's revelation makes it very clear that we have to be very careful. Very careful."

Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wisconsin, who voted against the original Patriot Act and led efforts to filibuster the current version, said, "I can't imagine a more shocking example of an abuse of power."

When it comes to discussion of the Patriot Act, Feingold said lawmakers must "come together" to simultaneously give the government the authority it needs "and protect the rights and freedoms of innocent citizens."

"We are a democracy -- let's have checks and balances," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, in an impassioned speech. "Let us have a government of checks and balances."

Republicans who voted against cloture included Sens. Chuck Hagel, John Sununu, Lisa Murkowski, and Larry Craig.

"I urge calm and sensitivity to the fundamental civil liberties of our country," said Craig.

Sununu said the government had provided no "substantive" material to show how proposed changes to some of the provisions could in any way undermine or weaken the government's ability to fight terrorism.
Kyl: 'No Middle Ground'

But Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona argued that the government has not abused its powers and that the Patriot Act should be renewed.

"You either vote yes to reauthorize or no not to reauthorize -- there is no middle ground," he said.

Citing Bush's threat to veto a three-month extension, Kyl added, "If you voted against cloture you are voting to allow the Patriot Act to expire.".

White House spokesman Scott McClellan, during his daily briefing Friday, was asked why the administration would oppose an extension.

"We've expressed our views how we believe the provisions should be permanent," he said. "And I think what's happening now is that some people are playing politics with this legislation."

Bush has called the act "essential to fighting the war on terror and preventing our enemies from striking America again."

Among the staunchest supporters of reauthorizing the provisions was Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who argued that voting against immediate reauthorization "amounts to defeat and retreat at home."

But due to the complexity of Senate rules, Frist ultimately voted against cloture. The vote allows him to try to bring the act up for another vote.

This week, the House of Representatives voted 251-174 to renew the 16 provisions, after striking a compromise that altered some of them.


+1 for Democracy.

[MrWebb78]

democracy doesn't work, star wars proved that.

[BilltheButcher]

Once again pulled from CNN, a completely non-biased source. But I think the idiots on capital hill got this right and didn't renew, I think b4 it got passed in haste and with emotions. However, if we get attacked again, here will be the headline for CNN, "Bush's Failure to Get Patriot Act Renewed Caused Attack" and here is Fox News's Headling, "Dems Roadblock Voting Down Patriot Act Renewal Casues Attack."

Someone wants to kill themselves in order to kill other people in an act of terrorism it will happen.

[Rock]

I like CNN, they show almost all version and let people of all opinion speak up, instead like some Police station like Fox.

[BilltheButcher]

I like CNN, they show almost all version and let people of all opinion speak up, instead like some Police station like Fox.

I think they're both F-d up. I watch CNN b/c it is one station down from ESPN and ESPN2, so I don't have to do a lot of button pushing during commercials.

[Praetorian]

The CNN Europe is not the same CNN the yanks watch.

[SW]

+1 for terrorists.

[Mission]

+1 for terrorists.

Wrong. Just like I don't want the Federal government invading my personal life when it comes to firearms, I don't want them going into my house without a warrant.

To fight terrorism, we should secure our docks, NOT give the government more power.

[Paul Stagg]

How many terrorists have been prosecuted and convicted due to the (unconstitutional) power granted the government by the Patriot act?

0

How many drug dealers?

More than 0.

If the Patriot Act is renewed, the terrorists indeed succeed in removing Liberty from people in the US.

[MixmasterNash]

If the Patriot Act is renewed, the terrorists indeed succeed in removing Liberty from people in the US.

Indeed, one might say they have succeeded at terrorizing America.

A few issues:
(1) The new Patriot Act included specific measures to "fight" crystal meth.
(2) Russ Feingold is the only Senator from either party with credibility on issues of civil liberties.
(3) Does it matter? Bush has been acting in violation of law (the 1978 FISA act) to monitor American citizens. In yet another crazy John Yoo ruling, the executive is simply ignoring whatever laws they want. Thus, the President is effectively a king.
(4) No conservative that supports the Patriot Act has honestly addressed the question: do you want a President Hillary to have these powers?
(5) Most (95+%) of the uncontroversial Patriot Act measures are still in force. Only the obviously ridiculous and reactionary measures passed after 9/11 had sunset provisions and were voted down in the Senate.

[spencerjrus]

How many terrorists have been prosecuted and convicted due to the (unconstitutional) power granted the government by the Patriot act?

0

How many drug dealers?

More than 0.

If the Patriot Act is renewed, the terrorists indeed succeed in removing Liberty from people in the US.



I agree completely, even if there was never another attack on America for 100 years the terrorists would still have succeeded by taking away our civil liberties.


"Those who are willing to sacrifice essential freedom for security deserve neither."

Benjamin Franklin

[Owen]

Law enforcement still needed warrents to conduct investigations under the patriot act, and they had to notify targets of their investigations in a resonable amount of time. It was not the monster that Paul, Mix, and the rest make it out to be.

No offense to Paul and Mix but if you two were lead by the hand point by point through the act and had all your ill-informed fears put to rest, people like you would simply shift your focus to a new front. Attack, attack, attack.....truth be damned, frothing at the mouth, crush, kill, destroy, Bush bad, TV says so.

How many terrorist attacks have we had in this country since 9-11, and how many people have sued due to abuse by the Act? Zero on both counts.

I think your both great guys and love reading your stuff by the way. I truly mean that. Awesome fellows! Wrong, but awesome none the less.

[Paul Stagg]

Why don't you point out what provisions in it are necessary, then point out how they don't violate the Constitution?

Pointing out the lack of terrorist attacks is silly. There haven't been any because no terrorists have tried to attack.

[HahnB]

Law enforcement still needed warrents to conduct investigations under the patriot act, and they had to notify targets of their investigations in a resonable amount of time. It was not the monster that Paul, Mix, and the rest make it out to be.

No offense to Paul and Mix but if you two were lead by the hand point by point through the act and had all your ill-informed fears put to rest, people like you would simply shift your focus to a new front. Attack, attack, attack.....truth be damned, frothing at the mouth, crush, kill, destroy, Bush bad, TV says so.

How many terrorist attacks have we had in this country since 9-11, and how many people have sued due to abuse by the Act? Zero on both counts.

I think your both great guys and love reading your stuff by the way. I truly mean that. Awesome fellows! Wrong, but awesome none the less.


If someone was arrested lets say for drugs, there's no way they would know that the government was listening in, so how could they sue?

[MixmasterNash]

No offense to Paul and Mix but if you two were lead by the hand point by point through the act and had all your ill-informed fears put to rest, people like you would simply shift your focus to a new front. Attack, attack, attack.....truth be damned, frothing at the mouth, crush, kill, destroy, Bush bad, TV says so.

American citizens have been detained for years without trial, the FISA act has been explicitly violated, National Security Letters have been used to bypass warrants, and military is conducting internal espionage against groups like the Quakers.

All fact.

And this is to say nothing of potential violations of Constitutional rights via provisions in the Patriot Act. Most of the questionable activities authorized under the Patriot Act are secret. Relevant FIOA request are routinely rejected on "national security" grounds.

If you support these measures, it is quite clear to me that you wish to allow the government full control over your life. Your privacy, freedom, and life may be taken by the government at any time, for reasons decided in secret and in violation of US law.

[d'Anconia]

I didn't ever get the news that they had been listening in on the conversations of citizens. That definitely is pretty screwy.

[spencerjrus]

I didn't ever get the news that they had been listening in on the conversations of citizens. That definitely is pretty screwy.



The problem was that the Patriot act allowed the extended surveilance to ANYONE deemed a terrorist. And the Patriot act defined a terrorist as anyone who may cause bodily harm or damage of personal property to another(paraphrased, not the exact wording). So basically anyone who could cause damage to another person or thing COULD be deemed a terrorist. It's not that the government did anything outrageous with the power it was given, it's that the government shouldnt have those powers in the first place.

[Pasha]

Gonzalez is a bitch. He should be tried for warcrimes, him and cheney. Bush is innocent cause hes jsut so damn stupid.

Btw nick, It's not a +1 for terrorists, its a +1 for you. Those hicks on capitol hill passed this legislation because they would get all the flack in the blame game if another one happened.

As stated by Mix, you can be detained indeffinitely for years without a single charge. Also you're judged by a military tribunal with no legal counsel. The only people present in the trial is the tribunal and you. I wonder what anybody's chances are without a lawyer. Sounds like this is ripped right out of an orwellian novel.

1 person out of the bush admin. is not a multi millionaire, what has Iraq done for YOU? Instead of invading Iraq, why not Invade Lebanon and smoke out Hezbolla? or Hamas on the Gaza strip? Egypt for Islamic Jihad?

While were on the subject its interesting how so many of those 'hijackers' were on the terror watch list... Or how they almost all were Saudi Arabian... NOT Iraqi. And its not like they were Pakistani-Saudi Arabian, because unlike in America you cant be saudi unless your father is an Arab, and his father. So those guys were really really Saudi Arabian.

But w/e.

[Owen]

I cant argue this with great depth. My point of view was reinforced after a episode of C-span hosted by Brian Lamb. On this episode a woman, former fed prosecutor, was up against a ACLU rep discussing the Patriot Act virtually point by point including Jose Padilla (sp).

She, the former fed prosecutor, convinced me that the Patriot Act was benign to US citizens unless under extreme circumstances. -Terrorisism- Its real you know, and bad guys have been stopped before acting.

However instances like the guy reading how to grow marijuana online, buying seeds online, and growing some in his closet under a 400 watt light, were not the type of things the P. Act was designed to foil. A judge, approached with a request to sneak into that guys home and snoop around, would not allow it. It wouldnt meet the purpose of the P. Act, no matter how much word play one engages in. Also that judge would have to answer to congress.

The P. Act had built in restraints. It was not used 'in the dark'.

This government does not hate you, ok guys?

You know Chris Matthews? Hes on the left, MSNBC host, he said that if Bush manages to install a Democracy in the Middle East, he should be put on Mount Rushmore. Can you imagine? I can see Cindy Sheehan out there tryin to get in the way and stuff ha ha ha. Mix could help her :evillaugh

[SW]

Wrong. Just like I don't want the Federal government invading my personal life when it comes to firearms, I don't want them going into my house without a warrant.

To fight terrorism, we should secure our docks, NOT give the government more power.

Right.
Many criminals have gotten away from police because they didn't have the power to go into their houses and search, or look at phone records etc. Wonder why we don't hear about them not having this problem anymore?

[Garrix]

...
(4) No conservative that supports the Patriot Act has honestly addressed the question: do you want a President Hillary to have these powers? ...


Bahahahah! so true! Seems republicans dont like big intrusive government unless its their big intrusive government

The hyprocrisy is stifling.

[Garrix]

Right.
Many criminals have gotten away from police because they didn't have the power to go into their houses and search, or look at phone records etc. Wonder why we don't hear about them not having this problem anymore?

hey, read the american constitution, bub... theres an important bit the founding fathers put in there about illegal search and seizure.

And just think about this for a moment. The entire government at the time this bit was put in constitution by folks like Thomas Jefferson, Madison, Adams and alike, was much much more fragile than it is today. It was much more likely that people could be plotting to overthrough the young United States government in the 1790s in the privacy of their homes, but the founding fathers decided it'd still be better to protect the rights of people's privacy rather than keep the government in a constant state of paranoia about what might happen if they didnt monitor the people. Point is,the founding fathers were in a much more dangerous position, but they did not choose to invade the privacy of US citizens, they actually made a point to NOT do that by making illegal search and seizure a fundemental concept of the US governent.


If you know the constitution, if you know the philosophy it was based upon, then you have no choice but to condemn the patriot act to some degree or another, otherwise, im afriad, you are either showing a disregard for some element of the constitutional philosophy or you are showing ignorance.

[shootermcgavin7]

hey, read the american constitution, bub... theres an important bit the founding fathers put in there about illegal search and seizure.

And just think about this for a moment. The entire government at the time this bit was put in constitution by folks like Thomas Jefferson, Madison, Adams and alike, was much much more fragile than it is today. It was much more likely that people could be plotting to overthrough the young United States government in the 1790s in the privacy of their homes, but the founding fathers decided it'd still be better to protect the rights of people's privacy rather than keep the government in a constant state of paranoia about what might happen if they didnt monitor the people. Point is,the founding fathers were in a much more dangerous position, but they did not choose to invade the privacy of US citizens, they actually made a point to NOT do that by making illegal search and seizure a fundemental concept of the US governent.


If you know the constitution, if you know the philosophy it was based upon, then you have no choice but to condemn the patriot act to some degree or another, otherwise, im afriad, you are either showing a disregard for some element of the constitutional philosophy or you are showing ignorance.



You mean the philosphy that rich, white, male landowners could be free? Amazing concept by our founding fathers, huh?

If you haven't seen the news media demonstrating that both parties are in this up to their necks, then you're likely someone who unforunately won't vote for a 3rd party in the future.

[SW]

Damn Garrix, you'd be right. Except for this tidbit: Amendment.

The Constitution is as a whole still good, but does need amending once in a while. International terrorism wasn't a big concern back then. Times change.

[Garrix]

You mean the philosphy that rich, white, male landowners could be free? Amazing concept by our founding fathers, huh?

If you haven't seen the news media demonstrating that both parties are in this up to their necks, then you're likely someone who unforunately won't vote for a 3rd party in the future.

Yeah, they werent perfect, you're right- but the fact that they had some ideas wrong does not allow you to dismiss all of their ideas. Nor does an ad-hom attack on the founding fathers deny their philsophy worth, to assume it does is a logical fallacy.

Seriously, i have read jefferson and madison and adams and washington et al, and i doubt they would have problems with modern-day conceptions of civil liberties. In fact, modern day civil liberties wouldnt exist without them. The spirit of the philosphy of civil liberties is the same.

Im also sorry for this tangent, but i feel i should respond in some way.

[shootermcgavin7]

Yeah, they werent perfect, you're right- but the fact that they had some ideas wrong does not allow you to dismiss all of their ideas. Nor does an ad-hom attack on the founding fathers deny their philsophy worth, to assume it does is a logical fallacy.


I didn't realize I dismissed them all. I just wanted to point out that their very ideas on freedom and equal rights, the very topics we're discussing, are incredibly tainted.




Seriously, i have read jefferson and madison and adams and washington et al, and i doubt they would have problems with modern-day conceptions of civil liberties.

I've got no problem with this - unless you try to invoke your speculation as fact. Which it appears you just did .....

All you can go by is their actions - and most of them kept slaves, and all of them signed a document that did exactly what I earlier stated.

[MixmasterNash]

Damn Garrix, you'd be right. Except for this tidbit: Amendment.

The Constitution is as a whole still good, but does need amending once in a while. International terrorism wasn't a big concern back then. Times change.

Did you just imply you support ammending the Constitution to restrict American rights in order to fight terrorists?

[SW]

No Nash, I say it's ok with me. I don't care what gov. official looks at my ****ing phone records, or hospital records, or minor stuff like that. Yes, it's an invasion of privacy but I'm willing to accept that to be more safe. I know you're not, we're just different that way.

Like I said, times change.

[MixmasterNash]

No Nash, I say it's ok with me. I don't care what gov. official looks at my ****ing phone records, or hospital records, or minor stuff like that. Yes, it's an invasion of privacy but I'm willing to accept that to be more safe. I know you're not, we're just different that way.

Like I said, times change.

You're scared of terrorists to the point of surrendering even a small degree of freedom?

[SW]

We're not as free as you may lead others to believe, even before Bush or the patriot act.

You know what worries me more about those small freedoms being discarded in the name of safety? ****ing imminent domain for the sake of money. That's what needs eviceration.

[shootermcgavin7]

I don't care what gov. official looks at my ****ing phone records, or hospital records, or minor stuff like that.


I care.

[MixmasterNash]

Oh, shooter, that's the old conservative in you talking. The new America loving conservative loves big government.

If you don't get with the program and support increasing government powers, yous is gonna get branded an America hatin' terrorist lover.

[shootermcgavin7]

yous is gonna get branded an America hatin' terrorist lover.


They're not counting on my massive army of Bears.

[MixmasterNash]

They're not counting on my massive army of Bears.

America hating bears.

[Garrix]

All you can go by is their actions - and most of them kept slaves, and all of them signed a document that did exactly what I earlier stated.

I dont think thats necessarily true- as in philosophy one does not judge a philosopher by whether or not they followed their own philosophy or not. No one says "hey, peter singer doesnt really follow to the full extent what his philosophy tells him to do, thus he is wrong and i dont need to take him seriously" That doesnt get you anywhere, its a bad argument and it doesnt dismiss the philosophy at all, its simply irrelevent to whats at hand.

So simply, we can look at the spirit of their philosophy and see how it applies today, and to say "well, they werent perfect, they had slaves" is really not that important, its an ad-hom, its not refuting their philosophy, so just becareful of that.

Speculation as fact- yeah, i shouldnt try to pass off my speculation as fact, true true. toche.

but i still think they'd accept modern civil liberties.

[the doc]

with every passing year our political structure is evolving to resemble that of the old Soviet Union

[Tryska]

if we weren't gearing up for another election year, i wonder what the vote would have been.

[spencerjrus]

if we weren't gearing up for another election year, i wonder what the vote would have been.



Ya thank goodness some of the Republicans needed to jump ship to have a chance on 08.

[SW]

Oh, shooter, that's the old conservative in you talking. The new America loving conservative loves big government.

If you don't get with the program and support increasing government powers, yous is gonna get branded an America hatin' terrorist lover.

I don't know how you can say that, knowing anything about the democrats. They've almost always been for expanding the govornment and increasing govornmental control over things. All the conservatives I know don't like big gov't and only think it should have the power it absolutely needs, like the patriot act. Kerry would've greatly expanded the gov't and raise taxes. Bush was fully against it and still is.

[Tryska]

Bush is fully against greatly expanding the government?


*cough* department of homeland security*cough*

[Paul Stagg]

If he's so against it, why didn't he veto any of the spending bills the Republican controlled congress sent him?

The ones that grew government at the fastest rate since FDR.

So under this Administration, with Republican control of Congress, government has grown more and government has gotten more power by leaps and bounds, even when compared with the Clinton administration and the Carter administration.

I think you are confused about what the Republican party stands for... they are most certainly for an ever expanding role of government, just not in the same areas as the Democrats.

[MixmasterNash]

I don't know how you can say that, knowing anything about the democrats. They've almost always been for expanding the govornment and increasing govornmental control over things. All the conservatives I know don't like big gov't and only think it should have the power it absolutely needs, like the patriot act. Kerry would've greatly expanded the gov't and raise taxes. Bush was fully against it and still is.

Have you been paying attention to the news for the past 5 years? At all?

The government has expanded in all aspects faster under the Republican Congress and President Bush than at any time in the past 40 years. The budget is off the charts. The entitlements are off the charts.

And had you been paying attention to my arguments during the election, you would well know that I support a politically divided government as that tends to be self-limiting. Your laughable statement that "Kerry would've greatly expanded the gov't and raise taxes" is completely divorced from the reality of a Republican Congress and simple knowledge of how the federal government works.

I feel that you will accept any thing that Bush does, period, under any circumstances. Is it really fear of terrorism that leads you to unquestioning support of the Bush administration?

[SW]

I support Bush because we need more unity in this country, I don't agree with half the **** he does but I lobbied for him and by God I'm gonna support him unless he does something especially ******ed. That's how I feel about it.

[MixmasterNash]

Is up down? Is black white? Is Bush a unifier?

Have you ever seen this country more disunited on such a broader array of issues?

Wedge issues are the fundamental political tool of the current GOP. They win elections, period. They make for poor governance.

[LovinLiftin]

Kerry and Bush felt differently on HOW to expand the gov't. Most democrats raise taxes to support the many federal programs that don't have any funding, Bush instead built DHS, which is the most inefficent gov't agency. I would take Clinton any day over Bush!

Since Bush is essentially my boss (federal employee) I will not trash talk him, but I have to say I am not pleased with many decsions, especially those about the courts, which too many people don't realize the significance of, and I am not pleased to have lost so many soldiers, esp the younger ones. I think it was a sad day the day he was re-elected, mainly for our generation, too bad we won't vote.

[ElPietro]

Lol, I guess he'll be able to bull-doze houses down with an army of tanks, under thesuspicion of terrorism, before you put your thinking cap on.

Edit: was in reply to Nick's most recent post.

Also I guess lying to the nation wasn't an oopsy?

Regardless of whether you are for or against the war, I am not debating that, but when a figurehead of your nation justifies the invasion of a country, which costs the lives of your brothers and sisters which may have signed up or gone to fight based on a lie or personal vendetta, if you swallow that without thought then I equate more intelligence to a half-eaten butternut squash.

[SW]

ElP: I still hold out hope and do see proof that Iraq is heading to a good end, it just looks bad now to some. Especially because the media wants me to think it's gone terribly, I automatically want to believe opposite.

In no way do I swallow what Bush says with no thought. I just usually agreed with him and lobbied for him again, because he's better than Kerry would have been. That's a different can of words.

I think he has handled Iraq incorrectly, but I still am holding out hope it will still bear fruit and somehow be worth the soldiers that have died. He has half the support I had for him a year ago.

[ElPietro]

I personally do not subscribe to the ends justifies the means approach.

If you go down that path, you open up a whole new world of possibilities, and that world can be devoid of freedom, rational thought, or justification for action.

[Tryska]

I support Bush because we need more unity in this country, I don't agree with half the **** he does but I lobbied for him and by God I'm gonna support him unless he does something especially ******ed. That's how I feel about it.


so essentially you don't want be wrong. you'll march yourself right off a Bush-led cliff to prove how right you are?

somebody please call Republican Rehab....

[Owen]

Nick I agree with you, as do many many successful happy people who deal in reason and truth, and whose primary concern is making the world a better place for all peoples.

Dont let these guys wear you down man!

Take Iraq, a new Democracy thanks to this administration. It did cost lives. Did you know that there were more murders in California ( I believe) last year , than Americans Killed in Iraq during our liberation of those kick ass people?

Nick do you know that much of what we see in the press concerning Bush being evil and what not is set there on purpose to show other potential democracies what 'for the people by the people means?' People in China and Iran and N. Korea see our press and TV disrespecting our leader and they say 'we want that! We want that freedom.' Its classic good cop bad cop.

It also helps keep the radical left -and let me give a shout out to their reps here at WBB- from going out and tearing down Mosques. Instead their hate is pointed inward at our churches and traditions. They wont really tear those down, only talk bad about them, and not defend them by word or deed.

So anyway, have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

For the others reading this thread, did you know Haliburton just built some secret Moon bases using Iraqi child labor in order to mine for cheese. They plan on cornering the cheese market. Dont ask why...... :rolleyes:

[the doc]

Nick I agree with you, as do many many successful happy people who deal in reason and truth, and whose primary concern is making the world a better place for all peoples.

Dont let these guys wear you down man!

Take Iraq, a new Democracy thanks to this administration. It did cost lives. Did you know that there were more murders in California ( I believe) last year , than Americans Killed in Iraq during our liberation of those kick ass people?

Nick do you know that much of what we see in the press concerning Bush being evil and what not is set there on purpose to show other potential democracies what 'for the people by the people means?' People in China and Iran and N. Korea see our press and TV disrespecting our leader and they say 'we want that! We want that freedom.' Its classic good cop bad cop.

It also helps keep the radical left -and let me give a shout out to their reps here at WBB- from going out and tearing down Mosques. Instead their hate is pointed inward at our churches and traditions. They wont really tear those down, only talk bad about them, and not defend them by word or deed.

So anyway, have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

For the others reading this thread, did you know Haliburton just built some secret Moon bases using Iraqi child labor in order to mine for cheese. They plan on cornering the cheese market. Dont ask why...... :rolleyes:
:rolleyes:

[Tryska]

Nick do you know that much of what we see in the press concerning Bush being evil and what not is set there on purpose to show other potential democracies what 'for the people by the people means?' People in China and Iran and N. Korea see our press and TV disrespecting our leader and they say 'we want that! We want that freedom.' Its classic good cop bad cop.




so really there is no freedom of the press. it's all just propaganda.

[ElPietro]

Wow, that paragraph was a complete waste of my life to read. No point, barely makes any sense, pehaps it was translated from pig latin?

That type of ignorance is what is ruining the world in general, not just the US, or Canada.

[SW]

Owen, I'm still quite conservative in my views and beliefs, but I believe that it could be put to much better use under someone other than Bush. I still support him, but not nearly as much. I've lost some respect for him.

[Paul Stagg]

I find it interesting that the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis don's seem to matter in the equation, or that the 'democracy' has formed an Islamic state, replacing the secular one that was at odds with Bin ladin.

I also find it interesting that the Constitution doesn't figure into this at all, nor do the millions of people suffering under more brutal conditions than in Iraq that the US is not liberating.

Facts. Pesky.

[ReturnedFire]

It also helps keep the radical left -and let me give a shout out to their reps here at WBB- from going out and tearing down Mosques. Instead their hate is pointed inward at our churches and traditions. They wont really tear those down, only talk bad about them, and not defend them by word or deed.


let me guess, gays getting married is the biggest problem in america right?

[Owen]

I find it interesting that the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis don's seem to matter in the equation, or that the 'democracy' has formed an Islamic state, replacing the secular one that was at odds with Bin ladin.
I also find it interesting that the Constitution doesn't figure into this at all, nor do the millions of people suffering under more brutal conditions than in Iraq that the US is not liberating.

Everyone I know just about pukes each time a bomb goes off in Iraq. The thing we all know is that Iraq is doing what everyone has to do to be free, fighting and dieing for it. Its the way it is and you know it. I think being Joe anit-war is just to alluring for some people.....

Islamic state? What happend to 'they wont get to be Islamic because the eeevil Bush will make them worship Jesus. Why cant they be Islamic Paul...are you a Islamo phobe? Dont be hatin :lurk: .
You folks on the left give the concept of tolerance good mouth but when it comes to action your true colors pop out dont they :windup: . Your one of those Michael Savage fans arent you? Who else do you hate? Wiccans, Hillary Clinton, Eskimos? :evillaugh

As far as the other folks, we will get there eventually, all though with the role playing our media is doing, I think many of those people will be compelled to meet us half-way.


Hey tryska, sometimes subtle moves mountains.

Saw your picture by the way, your incredible looking. I bet you get your way everywhere you go! :)

Jotosuds: Is that a religious argument? I thought it was semantic?

[Paul Stagg]

I think you should actually try to understand my position before suggesting I hold my position because it is somehow 'alluring'.

They can be whatever they want. The point (which you again miss) is that the United States will be LESS safe with an Isalmic state replacing a secular one. But this wasn't about securing the US from attack.

You also continue to ignore two big problems with the 'liberating iraq' reason for war (as opposed to the WMD reason, the 'threat' reason, and the terrorist reason, all of which have been shown to be false). I mentioned both of them in my above post. You apparently skipped that part assuming I'm some hippie anti-war because anti-war is cool fellow, instead of actually understanding my position. I'm not suprised.

I also think you might want to peruse more of my posts on this matter, as well as my blog. Referring to me as on the 'Left' is about as stupid as calling Cato 'Right Wing'.

[ElPietro]

I love the ignorant, that cannot argue facts, so they try to categorize people and then change the focus to some inane topic to discredit.

The simple fact that Owen assumes that people form an opinion on one thing don't apply the same logic to other thinking is foolish. Also, I guess a disregard for the reasoning, and providing no reasoning himself, coupled with making it seem like it's trendy to have one opinion or another just continues the ignorance.

I love when media is entirely dismissed, along with facts, that way you can make up whatever fallacies you wish, and stick to them, because fact or info no longer exist in your world.

But I'm sure god told you.

[Tryska]

Hey tryska, sometimes subtle moves mountains.

Saw your picture by the way, your incredible looking. I bet you get your way everywhere you go! :)



well thank you for the compliment.

[the doc]

I think you should actually try to understand my position before suggesting I hold my position because it is somehow 'alluring'.

They can be whatever they want. The point (which you again miss) is that the United States will be LESS safe with an Isalmic state replacing a secular one. But this wasn't about securing the US from attack.

You also continue to ignore two big problems with the 'liberating iraq' reason for war (as opposed to the WMD reason, the 'threat' reason, and the terrorist reason, all of which have been shown to be false). I mentioned both of them in my above post. You apparently skipped that part assuming I'm some hippie anti-war because anti-war is cool fellow, instead of actually understanding my position. I'm not suprised.

I also think you might want to peruse more of my posts on this matter, as well as my blog. Referring to me as on the 'Left' is about as stupid as calling Cato 'Right Wing'.
:clap:

[intargc]

I find it interesting that the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis don's seem to matter in the equation, or that the 'democracy' has formed an Islamic state, replacing the secular one that was at odds with Bin ladin.

I also find it interesting that the Constitution doesn't figure into this at all, nor do the millions of people suffering under more brutal conditions than in Iraq that the US is not liberating.

Facts. Pesky.

Umm... Paul... Have you even read any history on Iraq??? Say, for the past 20 years? I mean, I see your point somewhat, but come on man... To even compare the deaths due to this war to the millions of deaths caused by Saddam is simply weird... While I'm not a big Amnesty Int. fan, you can still look up facts on human rights violations in Iraq for the past 20 years and more. I think the millions of human rights violations and inhumane treatment of the Iraqi people far outweighs a few thousand deaths caused by trying to free them from a dictator that feeds them through meat grinders ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9970081/)...

The only reason I'm a Bush fan right now is because of the war on terror and his tax cuts. Everything else he's done I'm quite annoyed with. However, I'm not the type of person that has seething hate for someone so much I'd make myself look like a ninkanpoop just to be against him. Actually, the same goes with any president...

[Paul Stagg]

Millions?

Over the last 20 years, there are a number of governments that have killed far more people than Hussein did. There are places where people are far more oppressed.

So why just invade Iraq?

The 'war on terror' will be as successful as the 'war on drugs'. It also has nothing to do with invading iraq, other than inciting nationalism that rendered vast majority of Americans too stupid to question what the government said (remember, most americans thought Hussien had something to do with 9/11 when the US invaded iraq, even though he didn't, and there was no evidence he did.)

Of course, you didn't actually address what I said, either.

Invading iraq was unconstitutional. That's a fact.
Tens of thousands of iraqis are dead. Another fact. (Unfortunately, no one knows how many people.)
Iraq is going to be an Islamic Theocracy. Fizact. Read the parts of their constitution that have been published. It sure didn't liberate anyone.

As I said, this wasn't about 'liberating' the people of Iraq. That's what they say it's about (after the first reasons for war were debunked, that's all they could come up with). But the people are not being liberated. And the Administration couldn't care less if they are, other than to tell you they had a noble goal (which wasn't really the goal at all).

[intargc]

Millions?

Over the last 20 years, there are a number of governments that have killed far more people than Hussein did. There are places where people are far more oppressed.

So why just invade Iraq?

I agree. I personally would like to see every other country fall just as Iraq did if their people are being treated like that. However, this can't all be done at the same time.


The 'war on terror' will be as successful as the 'war on drugs'. It also has nothing to do with invading iraq, other than inciting nationalism that rendered vast majority of Americans too stupid to question what the government said (remember, most americans thought Hussien had something to do with 9/11 when the US invaded iraq, even though he didn't, and there was no evidence he did.)

You're talking points now... Show me content. Show me proof.

There is still no conclusion to whether or not Hussien had anything to do with Al Queda or Osama. Whether Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 is absolutely 100% irrelevant if you listened to ANY of the presidents speaches. They are a part of the war on terror, not a part of the war on 9/11 attacks.

Many reports have come out saying he didn't have anything to do with it, many reports have come out saying he did. There just isn't any conclusion yet and if you're saying there is, well... You might want to call Congress and the 9/11 commision and let them know of this profound knowledge you have because even they haven't come to that conclusion yet.


Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.



Of course, you didn't actually address what I said, either.

Umm, Ok. I wasn't trying to address everything. Just that one point that I thought was ridiculous. I'm sorry.


Invading iraq was unconstitutional. That's a fact.[/quote

Opinion. Back this fact up if you think it's a fact. Show me where we broke any part of the constitution to invade Iraq.

[quote=Paul Stagg]
Tens of thousands of iraqis are dead. Another fact. (Unfortunately, no one knows how many people.)
Iraq is going to be an Islamic Theocracy. Fizact. Read the parts of their constitution that have been published. It sure didn't liberate anyone.


The liberation is the fact they get to vote on their government, man. That they're not going to be fed into meat grinders any longer for not winning soccer tournaments and the fact they've been liberated from a dictator who was vicious. I'm sorry that I find that a relevant liberation.



As I said, this wasn't about 'liberating' the people of Iraq. That's what they say it's about (after the first reasons for war were debunked, that's all they could come up with). But the people are not being liberated. And the Administration couldn't care less if they are, other than to tell you they had a noble goal (which wasn't really the goal at all).

I just simply don't agree. As far as the weapons not being found, yes, that's ashame that we got such bad intelligence on this. However, liberating the Iraqi's was always apart of Bush's speech before going to war a la all the human rights violations he cited. If you don't want to think this was a reason, that's fine... However, just because you believe this doesn't make it fact.


a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred


a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty

[Paul Stagg]

LOL. Fantastic.

[MixmasterNash]

There is still no conclusion to whether or not Hussien had anything to do with Al Queda or Osama.

There is still no conclusion to whether or not Hussein had anything to do with you.

[Praetorian]

Explain this to me :

1) where are the wmd?
2) how was Iraq and Saddam a threat to the mighty US of A?

Why do you think Bush Snr didn't knock Saddam off during the first Gulf war? Go look at a map. Why do you think that the troops didn't follow a straight line from Kuwait into Iraq, sacking Bagdad? There certainly were no opposition left. And going even further back, why do you think the USA supported Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war?

Even though Saddam was 'teh evil', he kept status qou in that region by holding Iran's religious advance in check. Now that he is gone, there is a power vacum in the region, and it wouldn't surprise me if a new Religious Fundamental state emerged with some help from Iran.

Fact is, USA ****ed up that region for decades to come.

[intargc]

Explain this to me :

1) where are the wmd?

Umm, how about reading over my quote again:


As far as the weapons not being found, yes, that's ashame that we got such bad intelligence on this.

The fact we got bad intelligence on his current weapons stockpile doesn't mean we should pull out of Iraq now and leave it a mess. We have to finish what we started.

However, let me restate what Bush stated 18 bagillion times and it seems like you people have selective hearing on this. Iraq was, until Saddam was captured, in violation of 17, yes, 17 UN resolutions ( http://www.usembassy.lv/EN/Iraq/defiance) which were part of the '91 peace treaty of the Gulf war. Take the weapons out of the equation for a minute. He was in violation of the peace treaty. That itself states that we should have gone back in and slapped him around. Let's also not forget that he kicked the inspectors out of Iraq in 1998 and ceased all weapons inspections and sanctions. This is when Clinton lobbed missiles at Iraq.



2) how was Iraq and Saddam a threat to the mighty US of A?

Why do you think Bush Snr didn't knock Saddam off during the first Gulf war? Go look at a map. Why do you think that the troops didn't follow a straight line from Kuwait into Iraq, sacking Bagdad? There certainly were no opposition left. And going even further back, why do you think the USA supported Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war?

Bush 41 didn't take Saddam because that wasn't the objective. The objective was containment. Not to overthrow the government of Iraq. However, let's look back at his mistake. He told the Iraqi people to stand up against the goverment and take it down and we'd have their back. Thousands of Kurds did this exact thing. Then in the peace treaty and UN resolution, Schwarzkopf allowed Saddam some simple weapons. Their helicopters with guns. While the Kurds had taken over most of the city, Saddam came back in a slaughtered them by the thousands. Where was Bush 41 that said "Hey, we got your back, yo!" Nowhere. He jumped on out of there. This was the incorrect thing to do. I'm glad we have someone in there now that doesn't listen to rehtoric and talking points like some other presidents and goes with his gut on this. He's obviously done the right thing. 2 elections have already taken place and despite the reports of people be killed if they went to vote, the Iraqi people went out and voted anyway.



Even though Saddam was 'teh evil', he kept status qou in that region by holding Iran's religious advance in check. Now that he is gone, there is a power vacum in the region, and it wouldn't surprise me if a new Religious Fundamental state emerged with some help from Iran.

Fact is, USA ****ed up that region for decades to come.


Yeah, you're right. Now that Iraq is a democracy, we've seen a lot of changes in the Region. Just to name a few; Kuwait no longer has to deal with the Ba'athist regime trying to overrun it's country, Dictator Muammar Gaddafi of Lybia has renounced his country's unconventional weapons and support for terrorism, apologised for the Locherbie bombing and improved diplomatic relations with countries such as Britain and America, Lebanon's Syrian prime minister quit, There are going to be multi-party elections in Egypt, Saudi Arabia is considering some form of election for their government. I'm sure more "****ed" up things will happen for decades to come as well. ;) It's just terrible, I know...

[MixmasterNash]

Yeah, you're right. Now that Iraq is a democracy, we've seen a lot of changes in the Region. Just to name a few; Kuwait no longer has to deal with the Ba'athist regime trying to overrun it's country, Dictator Muammar Gaddafi of Lybia has renounced his country's unconventional weapons and support for terrorism, apologised for the Locherbie bombing and improved diplomatic relations with countries such as Britain and America, Lebanon's Syrian prime minister quit, There are going to be multi-party elections in Egypt, Saudi Arabia is considering some form of election for their government. I'm sure more "****ed" up things will happen for decades to come as well. ;) It's just terrible, I know...

And the two most dangerous regeimes in the world, North Korea and Iraq, have or will soon possess nuclear weapons. Both have clear ties to terrorists. And the great majority of our ground combat forces are completely occupied in Iraq.

So, at best, the whole democracy in the the Middle East thing is a wash with Iran going ahead with nuclear weapons development.

But then you consider our 2000 dead, our burnt out military, and $450 billion of our tax dollars down the drain. To say nothing of the suspension of civil liberties by the fearmongering clowns in government, we're coming out way behind on this one.

[intargc]

And the two most dangerous regeimes in the world, North Korea and Iraq, have or will soon possess nuclear weapons. Both have clear ties to terrorists. And the great majority of our ground combat forces are completely occupied in Iraq.

So, at best, the whole democracy in the the Middle East thing is a wash with Iran going ahead with nuclear weapons development.

But then you consider our 2000 dead, our burnt out military, and $450 billion of our tax dollars down the drain. To say nothing of the suspension of civil liberties by the fearmongering clowns in government, we're coming out way behind on this one.

Talking points, talking points, talking points... Here I am giving valid current event data and links to back up my opinions and all you people can do is throw a bunch of canned terms at me. I'm still waiting to hear the phrase "culture of corruption" from someone.....

2000 dead compared to what, MixmasterNash? Compared to WWII? 400,000 dead... Should we have backed out after Omaha Beach? Burnt out military? We had military in use from 1939 until 1945 during WWII... and you're telling me our military is "burnt out" over a mediocre 2000 casualty 2+ year war? Give it a rest... Show me any proof that anyone in our military is burnt out... I have 4 buddies that have been in and out of Iraq and none of them have said anything but good things about their experience over there.

And last time I checked, less than 40% of our military force is currently in Iraq. I'm not sure how this is a "great majority". But, however you want to spin it to complete your agenda is fine with me.

[ElPietro]

FYI this thread is on the patriot act. The war is obviously a major player, but arguing it ad naseum has been done hundreds of times with the same results.

[MixmasterNash]

And last time I checked, less than 40% of our military force is currently in Iraq. I'm not sure how this is a "great majority". But, however you want to spin it to complete your agenda is fine with me.

Since you claim to have intimate experience with soldiers, perhaps they can explain that troops go on rotation in the combat zone and then return to their home base. Units are measured by readiness and they are considered unready after returning from their deployment until they rest, retrain, and reequip. Thus, even when a unit is not serving overseas, they are often not available for deployment. So indeed, the majority of our ground forces are not available for deployment because they are either deployed in Iraq, have just returned, or are preparing to go to Iraq. Thus, our ground forces are occupied by Iraq. Troop levels have been reduced in other forward locations like S. Korea and Okinawa. And a significant portion of deployed soliders are NG and reserve, up to 40% of ground troops in Iraq. Long and frequent deployments are more difficult for these soldiers and units.

These deployments themselves have directly led to reductions in readiness.

Hyperbole? Try, the conclusions of the Army ordered deployment survey by the RAND corporation. Read it:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG362/index.html

Since I have presented the best top level analysis of the entire situation versus the anecdotal experiences of your buddies, I will assume that you cede this point to me.

[d'Anconia]

The Patriot Act got extended yesterday, didn't it?

[Tryska]

well it got a 6-month extension after initially being rejected by the senate. It's not a decisive victory for bushco, but it won't expire new year's eve. Guess somebody did a good "come to jesus" on certain rebellious republican senators.

yesterdays big vote was the budget - which actually wound up with a tie-breaker vote from Darth Vader himself.

[Roark]

my biggest problem with the patriot act is the fact that it is an impossibility that any politician read the bill before passing it

sadly, this is the case with many, if not most, of the bills passed by our government

[Tryska]

do you think there is a way to change that though? The reading of Bills prior to a vote I mean? Unless maybe you ad in a time period of say a week before any Bill that is submitted can come up for vote. But something like that would slow government way down. (not that it's speedy to begin with. unless you're in a coma.)

[shootermcgavin7]

do you think there is a way to change that though? The reading of Bills prior to a vote I mean? Unless maybe you ad in a time period of say a week before any Bill that is submitted can come up for vote. But something like that would slow government way down. (not that it's speedy to begin with. unless you're in a coma.)



Give all of them a 10 question quiz before they are allowed to vote on it. If they fail the quiz, not only are they not allowed to vote on the bill, but they can't take money from lobbyists for a week.


Since most Congressmen act like children, we might as well treat them that way.

[Tryska]

*lol* that is a hilarious idea.

The Gentleman from Georgia has received an F. No vote for you!

[Owen]

Give all of them a 10 question quiz before they are allowed to vote on it. If they fail the quiz, not only are they not allowed to vote on the bill, but they can't take money from lobbyists for a week.
I think thats a great concept. They can also have their 'grades' posted for their people back home to see when election time rolls around.

Hey Paul Stag...I think we disagree on Iraq LoL. I have read your other stuff and its sensible. Your not a hippie dumb ass thats for sure.

[Davidelmo]

How many of you own a credit card, debit card or bank account?

If you do, then the government can watch you anyway. When you go to a cash machine you give away your location at a particular time.

You mobile phone is not anonamous either.

Im not american but to be honest you have to realise that if they want to find out stuff about you they will. If a police investigation came up about you then can look at your bank accounts, phone records etc anyway.
I'm not 100% sure what freedoms you would lose because of the Patriot Act.

[shootermcgavin7]

How many of you own a credit card, debit card or bank account?


Honestly, I could be completely wrong, but I didn't know it was a requirement to be an American Citizen to hold any of these.

[Davidelmo]

Honestly, I could be completely wrong, but I didn't know it was a requirement to be an American Citizen to hold any of these.

huh?

Like I said, i'm not American so I dont really follow the ins and outs, so I don't really know what relevance this has.

Though my point is that if they want info on you there's probably plenty around already.

[Tryska]

your right and most of it is held by corporations.

I think one of the main problems people have with patriot act is the sneak and peek provision. basically the feds can come to your house while your out, look through your stuff and leave, without getting a warrant or even letting you know that they have been there. Another is them keeping track of what you check out of the library, or buy from booksellers. there's also the bit about being able to go through your financial records without letting you know.

[Owen]

If you want to stess over privacy issues look into those RFID chips that are bing put into everything now days. Maybe give Matt Drudge a listen, Sunday nights, he is into revealing how technology is being used to intrude into our private lives.


without getting a warrant or even letting you know that they have been there

They need warrents for sneak and peaks but they do not have to let the subject of the probe know immediately. What critics in the know worry about is this provision being used for minor things and not terrorisim. Here is a good source for pros and cons of the Patriot Act:

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/patriotact/patriotactdeal.html

I saw on the news in the last couple of days that the DEA is closing down Medical Marijuana Co-Ops in California. That is the issue that really gets to me, and causes me to have strong F**k the Feds feelings. Its just so stupid. Why cant people use Cannabis to make their lifes more enjoyable? Whats the big deal? That really steams me.

[Tryska]

because hemp would cut into the wood pulp market share?