The Legislative Branch has no oversight responsibility over the White House.
 

Here's the new talking point. [video]

The State Department seems to disagree a bit:
via

Please supply the video-challenged among us with some suitable con-text, if you please.

The thread title is a direct quote from Tony Snow, and he's been saying it on news shows throughout the day. More context is in the "via" link.

Thanks.

Tony Snow, and Alberto Gonzales, among others were selected more for their loyalty and devotion to the President, than for their loyalty and devotion to anything else, like the truth or the Constitution. I take his remarks with a grain of salt. I do accept the unfortunate truth that practically anything said long enough and loud enough is more likely to be scrutinized less, given more credit as "fact", despite the objective truth of the matter. :sigh:

What bums me out are all the impeachable offenses that are going unaddressed while they screw around with this.

So how many were critical when America installed an Attorney General that advocated torture? Outright advocated torture and we stayed silent or endorsed him - same difference.

Congress is dealing with what they can because so many Americans - including a majority in The Cellar - remain so quiet about a George Jr administration that would even suspend writ of Habeas Corpus. How many voiced contempt for that in The Cellar. Only a tiny minority.

Welcome to days of Nixon when so many Americans completely denied what Woodward and Bernstein were publishing. Those who learned from the movies (ie Watergate) would never understand. Almost no one was complaining about Watergate because ... well, just like today, many only stated a dislike. Dislike is akin to support of George Jr. A large majority in The Cellar - both domestic and foreign - post clear support of George Jr because their comments are not sufficiently negative. I see same active support of George Jr as during Watergate when a 'silent majority' also strongly supported Nixon and the Vietnam war - by so much silence.

Same support for Nixon that kept America in Nam for seven more years is support of George Jr today. Exactly why impeachable crimes cannot even be considered. Even posters in Britain and China post what is strong support for George Jr. Silence is support.

Exactly how old are you? I was around for Nixon and his fall from grace. Those were crimes. This is politics. Nothing more, nothing less. You are a Bush Basher. Please bring something to the table that has substance.

Lying to Congress is nothing right?

You are, of course, correct. Unfortunately, sometimes people need to be lead.

This is the Cellar thread in which we discussed the Gonzales appointment. I don't see anyone supporting Gonzales, and many people strongly criticized him.

I was also around for Nixon's fall and pardon....granted a young thing yet....but this adminstration's constellation of unprecedented power consolidation, manipulation and strategery- from signing statements, to political favors, to secret tapping, to torture, to haliburton, to abramoff, to plame, to misinformation and press manipulation, mismanagement, to secret prisons, to message leakage, to justice firing, to CIA tinkering and executive privilege... is making the break-in and Nixon taped arrogance look like the junior varsity. Many of the same crooks all grown up.

It may seem I am bashing Bush, but I am merely paying attention.

The Nixon Gang were pikers compared to this crowd.

I don't see strong condemnation of Gonzales. In that thread, I see Ashcroft resigns, Gonzales is selected, and Gonzales justified torture. Then the discussion goes into length about whether torture and 'enemy combatants' is justified. Eventually Powell resigns. Where is all this condemnation of Gonzales? One that approaches a strong condemnation is a post from glatt.

Over the past two years, Gonzales has been quietly approved when this is a guy who even refuses to close Guantanamo - as both Rice and Gate (Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense) - want. Why? This guy even condones unrestricted wire tapping. He even approves of international wire tapping without judicial review of when they even had a secret court to approve such spying.

Well maybe this entire administration is so corrupt that no one bothers to speak out. Words like scumbag and mental midget would be routine if people were truly opposed. Such mild criticism is so little as to be approval.

I don't see widespread condemnation of Gonzales, George Jr, "Mission Accomplished", wild and uncontrolled government spending, encouragement for war by the Israelis, intent to end the Nuclear Test Ban treaty, efforts to undermine the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Cheney's need for more presidential powers, corporate welfare to keep drug prices high, prosecution of those responsible for the CA energy crisis, destruction of science (ie stem cell research), White House lawyers rewriting science papers, America's poor relations through out the world - even with Mexico and Canada, etc. And then we have criminal after criminal activity among George Jr's closest supporters. Why so much quiet?

tw, just out of interest, do Americans listen to any of the NPR radio stations, or watch Jim Lehrer on PBS? Sometimes I think that we get better coverage of US politics than you guys do. In spite of what you have said to me in the recent past, I do not watch Fox News (I cannot - I do not have cable). The great thing about NPR, and Jim Lehrer, is that they show *both* sides of an argument. They do not just "Bush bash", they try to tell a balanced story. They have been very critical of Gonzales, and he is one of the few cases where neither forum has been able to find anything positive to say.

GWB has had his problems, but you have to live with him until Jan 2009. I disagreed with the invasion of Iraq in the first place, but I fully support both of our governments in keeping our troops in there for the foreseeable future. Not everything that Bush does is wrong. That does not mean that you can't criticise him, but a blanket "bagging" of everything to do with the White House, is not productive.

And that about sums it up. I find it interesting, and somewhat of a national talking point, that if you don't bash Bush you must get your information from Fox News. It has become a national response amongst the libs. I don't watch it much my self, except for O'Reilly, whom is not a newscaster as many like to paint him. He is a commentator. Same goes for Lehrer, which is a great show. But back to Fox, I never really considered Mara Liasson and Juan Williams to be very conservative.

I guess we just have to disagree, no problem there. But you certainly seem smarter than to lump all of the problems and events listed above to be "Bush's Fault"?

Then Who's fault is it? The buck stops at the top. The one that sets the precedent, the one that controls his administration. If you say he doesn't control his administration, then that's another failure that's his fault. :eyebrow:

And me. And Beestie.

And that is the beat of the mantra of the Left. I don't view the interdependent and complicated relationships of national and international politics in a such a simplistic manner. If it simplifies things for you by all means use "Bush's Fault" as your mantra. Many problems which surfaced in this administrations tenure have festered for more than 7 years including the events on 9/11/01. Congress carries much of the burden for current events either through action or non-action. Individuals in the administration carry responsibility for events, just because the worked for Bush does not mean "Bush did it!". The actions of a few misfit soldiers does not mean the General in charge did it, condoned it, or approved it. I am not absolving Bush of anything. He is an idiot. But he is not always responsible for the idiots under him. Persecute him in the annals of public opinion if it makes you feel better but it does not mean any of the problems are going to go away.

The Cellar is more than a handful of fingers. This silence is overwhelming. So many posters. So few viciously condemn a man who openly advocates torture, wire tapping without judicial review, firing US Attorneys to promote Republican extremists - and repeatedly lie about it. Where is this widespread defamation for a man with so much anti-American morals as to publicly advocate torture and to suspend habeas corpus to promote torture?

Crickets....

Just like in Nam when the president openly lied, then massacres and other criminal actions by US soldiers increased - became far more common than is publicly acknowledged. Let's just leave it to many peers who acknowledge actions by 'fellow soldiers'. It was widespread because the president was a liar. So much a liar that mail TO the troops was censored.

No need to simplify. It's Bush's fault and the fault of everyone else involved. It's not coincidence that Bush hired so many bad apples. He intended to spoil the barrel.

Heck, most of the things on warch's list aren't even denied by the administration anymore. They intend it to be the way things are done.

NPR and PBS (Jim Lehrer) advocate presenting facts and statements from all sides. But that is only part of it. Another is to provide more than superficial (executive) summaries. For example, we took a same story from two newspapers. The first from a tabloid. Then after a conclusion was reached, we had the same story from a serious newspaper. Second story was provided with details - longer report. Everyone then had a 180 degree different conclusion.

It’s not just 'balanced' that is required. In depth is also essential.

Some giants who did this were Walter Cronkite (CBS), Peter Jennings (ABC), and Ted Koppel (ABC). A news service that was completely gutted when Tisch(?) decided to increase profits rather than improve the product. As a result, Dan Rather had few if any good journalists. Another that is still doing good stuff is Charlie Rose (PBS) whose reports every night this week (and next) are chock full of facts - the details. That stuff costs money if obtained on the net.

Curious is what happened to two ABC News journalists who did good and balanced reporting - Chris Wallace and Jeff Greenfield. Both went to Fox News. Neither reports anything like what they did for ABC which demonstrates how much top management makes that happen. Both Wallace and Greenfield report so completely one sided that I would not recognize them without their byline (names).

I got curious recently about one month after the Walter Reed scandal were repeatedly front page news. Randomly asked 20 and 30 year olds what they knew about Walter Reed. None even knew what Walter Reed was. Then I asked if they know about wounded American soldiers lying in hospital beds even in their own urine. Some literally got indignant because they should not know about this - insisting because they don't watch news.

Zero for 29 is the number of 20 and 30 year olds that knew zero about the news. My surprise was how some were indignant when I asked about soldiers lying in their urine. It explains why so many believe myths about illegal immigrants creating crime waves and living on welfare - as one might expect from those who only read tabloids. It explains why so many are so silent about "Mission Accomplished" and Gonzales. So many don't even hear 22 minutes of network news since Entertainment Tonight (Hollywood gossip and Britney's underwear?) apparently has more interest. As one foolishly said, "The news is so depressing." (She said it without a Valley Girl accent.)

Getting both balanced and in depth news domestically is not easy especially with the loss of both Peter Jennings and Ted Koppel's Nightline. I cannot say enough about what Charlie Rose is doing both this past week and next. Repeatedly heard is a significant number who get their news from "Daily Show" - a comedy show. Well time is a definer. uryoces posted that back in Mar 2003 back when I was suggesting things like an Iraqi insurgency, looting of the Iraqi museums (they lost 60% of their treasures and are still missing most of it), BBC reporter who found town after town unsafe to keep asking questions (people who welcomed liberation?), Al Qaeda not allies with Saddam, Saddam's missiles did not violate UN limitations, and how Saudis may have been inadvertently financing Al Qaeda. This stuff reported back in Mar 2003 by responsible news sources has proven accurate. That's why responsible and balanced news sources are so essential.

Is everything George doing wrong? No. For example, he wants to lift some ridiculous restrictions on immigration. But when it comes to big things such as what is killing American soldiers, he is wrong more times than anyone has fingers and toes; because decisions are based totally in political agendas. One information source that is 100% suspect everytime? George Jr government whose job is to spin rather than solve.

Let's demonstrate what responsible news sources are currently noting. About 2 million Iraqis have fled the country due to a country made so unsafe by Americans. Another 1.8 million that cannot leave may be hiding out in extreme regions of the country. These people need help. But Americans - even in the Green Zone - can only impede such help. Why? Help would acknowledge facts that are contrary to George Jr spin. Administration would have to admit Iraq has never been worse. So 3.8 million Iraqis are abandoned with the US even impeding UN assistance. Official US spin is that these massive refugee numbers do not exist. How many news sources bother to report such fundamental details? But it again demonstrates the contempt that this administration has for people due to their political agendas.

Thanks tw (I mean that).

"openly advocates torture"; really??? Where? please provide proof.

"wire tapping without judicial review"; Of phone calls from overseas, hell yea, good idea. Sorry if you were on the receiving end.

"firing US Attorneys to promote Republican extremists - and repeatedly lie about it"; Really where is the proof that Bush did any of this? Gonzales and Bush are not one in the same. Blame someone else cause I doubt you find a single shred of evidence leading back to Bush.

" to publicly advocate torture and to suspend habeas corpus to promote torture"; See first statement.

Lost from the Baghdad museum: truth


David Aaronovitch
Tuesday June 10, 2003
The Guardian


Civilians inspect Torah scrolls stored in the vault of the National Museum in Baghdad

When, back in mid-April, the news first arrived of the looting at the Iraqi National Museum in Baghdad, words hardly failed anyone. No fewer than 170,000 items had, it was universally reported, been stolen or destroyed, representing a large proportion of Iraq's tangible culture. And it had all happened as some US troops stood by and watched, and others had guarded the oil ministry.
Professors wrote articles. Professor Michalowski of Michigan argued that this was "a tragedy that has no parallel in world history; it is as if the Uffizi, the Louvre, or all the museums of Washington DC had been wiped out in one fell swoop". Professor Zinab Bahrani from Columbia University claimed that, "By April 12 the entire museum had been looted," and added, "Blame must be placed with the Bush administration for a catastrophic destruction of culture unparalleled in modern history." From Edinburgh Professor Trevor Watkins lamented that, "The loss of Iraq's cultural heritage will go down in history - like the burning of the Library at Alexandria - and Britain and the US will be to blame." Others used phrases such as cultural genocide and compared the US in particular to the Mongol invaders of 13th-century Iraq.

Back in Baghdad there was anger. On April 14, Dr Donny George, the museum's director of research, was distraught. The museum had housed the leading collection of the continuous history of mankind, "And it's gone, and it's lost. If Marines had started [protecting the museum] before, none of this would have happened. It's too late. It's no use. It's no use."

A few weeks later - in London to address a meeting at the British Museum - George was interviewed for this newspaper by Neal Ascherson. George, said Ascherson, did not throw blame around, but did remark that most of the looters responsible for the damage were not educated.

On June 1, George was reported in the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag as reiterating that witnesses had seen US soldiers enter the museum on April 9, stay inside two hours and leave with some objects. When asked whether he believed that the US military and international art thieves had been acting in concert, George replied that a year earlier, at a meeting in a London restaurant, someone (unnamed) had told him that he couldn't wait till he could go inside the National Museum with US soldiers and give it a good pillage - ie, yes.

So, there's the picture: 100,000-plus priceless items looted either under the very noses of the Yanks, or by the Yanks themselves. And the only problem with it is that it's nonsense. It isn't true. It's made up. It's bollocks.

Not all of it, of course. There was some looting and damage to a small number of galleries and storerooms, and that is grievous enough. But over the past six weeks it has gradually become clear that most of the objects which had been on display in the museum galleries were removed before the war. Some of the most valuable went into bank vaults, where they were discovered last week. Eight thousand more have been found in 179 boxes hidden "in a secret vault". And several of the larger and most remarked items seem to have been spirited away long before the Americans arrived in Baghdad.

George is now quoted as saying that that items lost could represent "a small percentage" of the collection and blamed shoddy reporting for the exaggeration.

"There was a mistake," he said. "Someone asked us what is the number of pieces in the whole collection. We said over 170,000, and they took that as the number lost. Reporters came in and saw empty shelves and reached the conclusion that all was gone. But before the war we evacuated all of the small pieces and emptied the showcases except for fragile or heavy material that was difficult to move."

This indictment of world journalism has caused some surprise to those who listened to George and others speak at the British Museum meeting. One art historian, Dr Tom Flynn, now speaks of his "great bewilderment". "Donny George himself had ample opportunity to clarify to the best of [his] knowledge the extent of the looting and the likely number of missing objects," says Flynn. "Is it not a little strange that quite so many journalists went away with the wrong impression, while Mr George made little or not attempt to clarify the context of the figure of 170,000 which he repeated with such regularity and gusto before, during, and after that meeting." To Flynn it is also odd that George didn't seem to know that pieces had been taken into hiding or evacuated. "There is a queasy subtext here if you bother to seek it out," he suggests.

On Sunday night, in a remarkable programme on BBC2, the architectural historian Dan Cruikshank both sought and found. Cruikshank had been to the museum in Baghdad, had inspected the collection, the storerooms, the outbuildings, and had interviewed people who had been present around the time of the looting, including George and some US troops. And Cruikshank was present when, for the first time, US personnel along with Iraqi museum staff broke into the storerooms.

One, which had clearly been used as a sniper point by Ba'ath forces, had also been looted of its best items, although they had been stacked in a far corner. The room had been opened with a key. Another storeroom looked as though the looters had just departed with broken artefacts all over the floor. But this, Cruikshank learned, was the way it had been left by the museum staff. No wonder, he told the viewers - the staff hadn't wanted anyone inside this room. Overall, he concluded, most of the serious looting "was an inside job".

Cruikshank also tackled George directly on events leading up to the looting. The Americans had said that the museum was a substantial point of Iraqi resistance, and this explained their reticence in occupying it. Not true, said George, a few militia-men had fired from the grounds and that was all. This, as Cruikshank heavily implied, was a lie. Not only were there firing positions in the grounds, but at the back of the museum there was a room that seemed to have been used as a military command post. And it was hardly credible that senior staff at the museum would not have known that. Cruikshank's closing thought was to wonder whether the museum's senior staff - all Ba'ath party appointees - could safely be left in post.

Furious, I conclude two things from all this. The first is the credulousness of many western academics and others who cannot conceive that a plausible and intelligent fellow-professional might have been an apparatchiks of a fascist regime and a propagandist for his own past. The second is that - these days - you cannot say anything too bad about the Yanks and not be believed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,974193,00.html

More facts on the Iraqi looting which dispell TW's statement that 60% of the artifacts were looted:

http://www.culturekiosque.com/art/ne...dadmuseum.html

I could go on but it is pretty clear that the number of 60% is total BS.

In May 03 I posted a NY Times story that thoroughly debunked the museum looting but it didn't suit tw's imagination of events so he ignored it.

I ignored what was not true. Museum has recently summarized its situation. They lost about 60% of their treasures. Of that, only 20% have been recovered. But back then, UT was posting anything to deny realities in Iraq - even the looting. Rumsfeld was denying looting. Amazed me back in 2003 were the number of otherwise responsible people who believed outright Rumsfeld lies.

That museum looting was massive in direct contradiction to what UT believes. They lost about 60% which numbers tens of thousands of artifacts. But Rumsfeld said looting did not exist. Therefore it must have been true? If Rumsfeld said it, then it is probably a lie until proven otherwise.

Iraqi curators believe they will never find most of what was looted (but is still there according to UT). Facts posted about looting then are still accurate today. Why did I cite that museum looting from 2003? Because the BBC reported on it again last night – complete with numbers.

The fuck he's not. He picked 'em and he's most certainly responsible for their and the rest of his administrations actions. Especially when this shit becomes public knowlege and he does nothing about it.

If a few soldiers go nuts the General is most definitely responsible and if he does not correct the situation, he's going down.... especially if he tries to keep it a secret. That football player that got fragged by his own men is the perfect example of Generals going down.......4, IIRC.:apistola:

I couldn't find any such recent BBC story on the BBC website.

I did find that according to the BBC,
BBC November 03
The Cellar awaits your cites.

That link shows pretty clearly what the most likely scenario of what actually happened is. Plus believable numbers. Good find. :thumbsup:

That is because they proved that the generals had known about the event and were part of the supression of the truth. They should go down. In the other cases you can't prove that, so no they were not sacked.

Do you think it was fair to sack the coach of the Lacrosse team at Duke on the now totally unfounded charges of rape on the 4 players? When and where does personal responsibility start and whole scale slaughter of an organization end because of the actions of a few? Our country has a huge problem with personal responsibility, it is always someone elses fault.

That's Bush's claim at least.

The FBI which couldn't figure out how to stop 22 known Islamic radicals even after their presence and intentions were repeatedly brought to their attention NOW all the sudden can't stick their collective noses far enough up Joe American's ass as seen here and here.

And this and this and this is what's going on in attorney general Torquemada's office.

Nah, we got nuttin to worry about right, Mercenary? The next lucky bastard who gets shipped off on an all-expense paid year-long trip to the glorious Syrian penal system for some much needed "dental work" could be you.

Three years ago, I received a national security letter (NSL) in my capacity as the president of a small Internet access and consulting business. The letter ordered me to provide sensitive information about one of my clients. There was no indication that a judge had reviewed or approved the letter, and it turned out that none had. The letter came with a gag provision that prohibited me from telling anyone, including my client, that the FBI was seeking this information. Based on the context of the demand -- a context that the FBI still won't let me discuss publicly -- I suspected that the FBI was abusing its power and that the letter sought information to which the FBI was not entitled.

Rather than turn over the information, I contacted lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union, and in April 2004 I filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the NSL power. I never released the information the FBI sought, and last November the FBI decided that it no longer needs the information anyway. But the FBI still hasn't abandoned the gag order that prevents me from disclosing my experience and concerns with the law or the national security letter that was served on my company. In fact, the government will return to court in the next few weeks to defend the gag orders that are imposed on recipients of these letters

Wow. Just friggin wow. Pretty hard to bring public pressure to bear, when they do this to you.

If you think that the situation was a simple ID by certain groups around the US and the world you are deluded. But thanks to a previous administration the agencies were prevented from talking to each other and sharing that info. Luckily we now have The Patriot Act which fixed some of those problems.:rattat:

What problem? The problem the government has when rights granted us under the Constitution and Bill of Rights impedes their ability to do police work even a moron could do within the parameters of our civil rights?

Fine. Effective immediately, judicial approval of search warrants is no longer required. Warrants will be issued by and executed by local law enforcement without judicial review therefore the entire legal principal of illegal search and seizure has been nullified - no searches can be characterized as illegal since searches are now conducted at the discretion of the police force. Seized property cannot be deemed illegally seized since seizures are conducted at the discretion of local law enforecement.

Now with that pesky requirement out of the way, LET'S GO GET US SOME CRIMINALS!!! WOOOHOOOO!!!!

"Pardon me, miss but I'm going to need to search your house."
"Why?"
"There might be something illegal going on in there which, under the new 'Patriot Act' is a supposition which cannot be legally challenged since there is no threshold for making such a determination."

Tell you what, Mercenary, I'll be in charge of deciding who to apply the provisions of the Patriot Act to. Since the requirement for judicial approval has been voided and since there is no recourse to citizens because their rights against search, seizure and habeus corpus can be suspended at the sole discretion of the government then technically your rights haven't been violated (the right itself has been revoked).

I'll decide who is spied upon. I'll decided who's records are requested without a warrant and I'll prohibit the parties providing the records from acknowledging that they were provided. I'll review them in secret and decide what police action shall be taken against you and I am accountable to no judicial authority.

Is this the world you want to live in? That's what the Patriot Act provides for. And as if that weren't bad enough, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA and other agencies are acting in flagrant violation of it and no one can do anything about it except tell them to stop.

That's not America and anyone who foolishly supports such unchecked revocation of rights afforded us under the Constitution is no American.

I think that was Reagan, IIRC.

I don't buy that hype. It is not unchecked.

.C. Dispatch | April 19, 2005

Legal Affairs | by Stuart Taylor Jr.

Patriot Act Hysteria Meets Reality


The emerging expert consensus contradicts the hype: for the most part, the Patriot Act is a good law
.....

When the Bush administration says it wants to make permanent the freedom-stealing provisions of the PATRIOT Act, they're telling those of us who believe in privacy, due process, and the right to dissent that it's time to surrender our freedom."

So screams the first sentence of a recent fundraising letter from the American Civil Liberties Union. This and countless other overheated attacks—from conservative libertarians and gun-rights activists as well as liberal groups—have scared some 375 local governments and five states into passing anti-PATRIOT Act measures, while sending earnest librarians into a panic about Big Brother snooping into library borrowers' reading habits.

But consider what the ACLU says when it is seeking to be taken seriously by people who know something about the issues: "Most of the voluminous PATRIOT Act is actually unobjectionable from a civil-liberties point of view, and ... the law makes important changes that give law enforcement agents the tools they need to protect against terrorist attacks."

That's right: That was the ACLU talking, in an April 5 press release. To be sure, the release goes on to stress that "a few provisions ... unnecessarily trample civil liberties, and must be revised." Well, perhaps. And with 16 provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act scheduled to sunset on December 31, it is surely time to give the entire 342-page, 156-section law the careful scrutiny that it has not received from most of the legislators who passed it in October 2001.

This is not to deny that the Bush administration has engaged in grave abuses, both at home and abroad, beginning with its unduly prolonged post-9/11 detention and (in many cases) abuse of hundreds of visitors from the Muslim world. Most alarming have been the administration's claims of near-dictatorial wartime powers to seize and interrogate—even to the point of torture—anyone in the world whom the president labels an "enemy combatant."

But contrary to many a newspaper account, these abuses and overreaching claims of power had nothing to with the PATRIOT Act, about which so many people have cried wolf that the real wolves have received less attention than they deserve.

The good news is that with the December 31 sunset approaching, serious thinking has penetrated the previously shallow debate. Anyone interested in reading the best arguments for and against the more controversial provisions can find them at www.PatriotDebates.com, a collection of mini-debates among an ideologically diverse group of 17 experts. The "sourceblog" was put together by Stewart Baker, chair of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Law and National Security.

"In several cases, the civil libertarians we recruited to find fault with particular provisions have ended up proposing modification rather than repeal," writes Baker. And amid numerous suggestions for modest tinkering, it turns out that only about six provisions have provoked very spirited debate. This should not be surprising: Much of the act consists of long-overdue amendments—which were on the Clinton Justice Department's wish list well before 9/11—to give government agents pursuing terrorists and spies the same investigative tools that are available to those pursuing ordinary criminals, and to counteract the bad guys' use of new technologies such as e-mail and disposable cellphones.

The most widely denounced provision is Section 215, one of the 16 that will sunset unless re-enacted. It is commonly known as the "library" provision because it might someday be used to obtain library records—even though, as the Justice Department reported on April 5, it never has been so used and does not even contain the word "library." Section 215 authorizes the FBI to obtain an order from a special court, established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, to require any business or other entity to surrender any records or other "tangible things" that the FBI claims to be relevant to an intelligence investigation.

This power is undeniably sweeping. But it is almost certainly constitutional under Supreme Court rulings that allow, for example, the government to see your credit card records. And it is far less invasive of privacy than, say, a wiretap. What many critics ignore is that for decades, prosecutors have had even more-sweeping powers to issue subpoenas requiring businesses and organizations, including libraries and medical facilities, to hand over any records that are arguably relevant to ordinary criminal investigations. Such subpoenas have been routinely issued without prior judicial scrutiny for many years.

Critics complain that a Section 215 order can apply to records pertaining to people not suspected of being foreign agents. (The same is true of an ordinary subpoena.) But this is as it should be. A key technique for catching terrorists is to trace their activities through those of associates who are not themselves engaged, or known to be engaged, in terrorist activities.

This is not to say that Section 215 is flawless. Most obviously, it fails to specify any way for a recipient of an unwarranted or overly broad order to ask a court to reject or narrow the order. Even Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has conceded that this is a defect that should be cured.

Gonzales, in this and other ways, including his April 13 meeting with ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero, has responded to critics far more constructively than his predecessor, John Ashcroft, ever did.

Critics, including Peter Swire, a law professor at Ohio State University who is the Section 215 critic on PatriotDebates.com, also make a strong case that a gag-order provision in Section 215 is unduly sweeping. This provision automatically bars recipients from disclosing Section 215 orders to the media or to anyone else, ever. The purpose is to prevent terrorists from learning that the government is on their trail. But the absolute and perpetual nature of the gag orders eliminates a key check on possible abuse. Swire proposes several limitations. At least one seems worthy of adoption: The gag orders should expire after six months unless extended by the FISA court.

he other major target of civil libertarians is Section 213, which authorizes so-called "sneak-and-peek" warrants for what the government calls "delayed-notice" searches. Ordinarily, search warrants must be served on the subjects at the time of a search. Section 213, which is not among the provisions scheduled to sunset, recognizes several exceptions, allowing judges to delay notice of a search until after a search is already completed, when the government shows that delay may be necessary to avoid: 1) endangering life or physical safety, 2) flight from prosecution, 3) tampering with evidence, 4) intimidation of witnesses, or 5) "otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial." This last is the so-called catch-all provision.

Amid a deluge of misleading scare rhetoric about FBI agents rummaging through bedrooms and covering their tracks, most critics have ignored the fact that Section 213's main impact is to codify what courts have done for decades when necessary to avoid blowing the secrecy that is critical to some investigations.

Critics complain that Section 213 was enacted under a false flag, because sneak and-peek searches in terrorism investigations had already been authorized by FISA. The provision's main impact, they say, has been to make it easier for agents to obtain sneak-and-peek warrants in ordinary criminal investigations. This is true. It's also true that a strong case can be made for revising Section 213 to require notice of an ordinary criminal-investigation search within, say, seven days unless the court authorizes further delay. And it's arguable that the catchall provision makes it too easy to get a sneak-and peek warrant.

But on the scale of threats to liberty, Section 213 ranks far, far below such widely ignored laws as, for example, the five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for possessing five grams of crack cocaine.

The debates over the other four most controversial provisions—which cover three subject areas: "roving wiretaps," information-sharing between criminal and intelligence investigators, and prosecutions of people for providing terrorists with "material support"—also boil down to plausible arguments for and against relatively modest adjustments in the liberty-security balance.

Many libertarians have united behind the proposed SAFE Act, a package of revisions that would probably be of no great harm to the war on terrorism and no great benefit to civil liberties. But at a time of domestic security threats more dire than in any period since the Civil War—threats posed by jihadists who have a chillingly realistic hope of buying or making doomsday weapons that could kill us by the millions—most of these proposals strike me as small steps in the wrong direction.

But even if I'm incorrect about that, the big news is that for all the Sturm und Drang, we may be seeing the emergence of a remarkable expert consensus: For the most part, the USA PATRIOT Act is a good law.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/20050...lor_2005-04-19

The current "check" appears to be "congressional investigation if and only if Democrats are in power" (this morning). Something more systematic is called for.

Like, for example, warrants.

So, it was overreaching,redundant,ripe for abuse, TWO YEARS AGO, and yet you're still straining and failing to justify its usefulness and benevolence?! Are you incapable of learning? My God, man, use your head. Look around you. Read a little more.

The strength of our systems, governmental and judicial, among others, is drawn largely from the twin virtues of checks and balances and openness. These two pillars of our national heritage are squarely in the crosshairs of the misleadingly titled "PATRIOT" Act. How can we say we've protected America by becoming what America is not--secretive, closed, arbitrary?

Sorry my friend, changes needed to be made. I don't think that I or our system have anything to worry about.

"Changes needed to be made! These are changes! Therefore these needed to be made!"

You are from Monty Python aren't you? I knew I had seen you somewhere.
:celebrat:

Well, in theory anyone served with a national security letter can tell their congressman since the law states that Congress will be kept informed.

This however, is probably not the case since the reality is that the law is designed to keep everyone in the dark.

Always remember why a Patriot Act was created. Because so many ongoing investigations that could have stopped 11 September were quashed by George Jr administration people. That is a fact as even demonstrated by a picture on the front cover of Time Magazine AND where this nation's #1 anti-terrorist investigator died.

Rather than fix the wackos in George Jr's adminstration, we created Fatherland Security provisions, wiretapping of anyone, suspended writ of Habeas Corpus, and orange alerts for terrorists that never existed.

When the president had intelligence, current laws were more than sufficient to stop every terrorist attack. So why does the Patriot Act exist?

Conspiracy Theory Bull Shit Alarm

TW, I found your picture.
http://www.apparelsearch.com/Definit...-foil_hats.jpg

Always remember why a Patriot Act was created. Because so many ongoing investigations that could have stopped 11 September were quashed by George Jr administration people. That is a fact as even demonstrated by a picture on the front cover of Time Magazine AND where this nation's #1 anti-terrorist investigator died.

Rather than fix the wackos in George Jr's adminstration, we created Fatherland Security provisions, wiretapping of anyone, suspended writ of Habeas Corpus, and orange alerts for terrorists that never existed.

When the president had intelligence, current laws were more than sufficient to stop every terrorist attack. So why does the Patriot Act exist?

BS till you post an original source citation. Get off your conspiacy theory horsey.

http://www.raptureready.com/photo/tulsa2/z56.jpg

The next change will be rectal searches with a pitchfork. You first, Mercy.

I have tears running down my face at the picture of the man on the horse.
I've had to come out of the thread and come back in again because it made me laugh so much first time.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Now, carry on.

Sorry, I'm the one that owns the pitch fork. So that will never happen.:blush:

Not after it's removed from your premises without a warrant, and then introduced to your gluteus without a trial.

I knew those liberals were going to pass pitch fork registration and seziure sooner or later. They did pass anti-pitch fork attachment legislation for my rifle once already, so I am really not surprised they would try to take them away eventually. Thank God I have more than one.

So you believe you have the right to your pitchfork. You probably justify this opinion with this:I agree that this one is important, but why would you believe that warrantless searches are ok? Isn't that covered in the same document:
How can you say the first one is worthy and this one's not?! Who are you to decide which parts of the Constitution are worthy of respect and obedience and which are not?

I have another news flash for you. You can't delegate it away from me either. Just because *you* wish to surrender your rights, doesn't mean you surrender *my* rights. Here's why:What part of warrantless searches do you not understand?
You've identified the root cause of the problem.

"unreasonable searches" key word here... I don't find them to be unreasonable at this point.

"How can you say the first one is worthy and this one's not?! Who are you to decide which parts of the Constitution are worthy of respect and obedience and which are not?" Who are you to say they are or are not? No better than me in that respect, eh?

"What part of warrantless searches do you not understand?" What part of 9/11 do you not understand? What part of terrorism do you not understand? Exactly how often have you traveled to parts of the world where your life is in danger because you are an American before 9/11? What do you do for a living that you feel soooo protected by the ills of people who really do want to kill you and your family and everything about you? It is people that think like you that got us into this mess in the first place and now that concrete steps are taken to change that and prevent future loss you want to dial back the clock. I got news for ya, it ain't happening. Well unless of course Hitlery Clit on is elected and then the Dems will certainly have all the control they desired, and all of the responsibility to keep you safe. Good luck on that last one. :rolleyes:

So the feds were waiting on a warrant when the planes took off on 9-11? If only they had some way to act immediately and get a retroactive warrant 72 hours later...

My friend. If you think that 9/11 was the first time we were engaged in trying to find, hunt down, capture, or kill terrorists around the world you have some schooling to do.