The USA Patriot Act - “My Oh My”
Hi everyone . . .
well, I have been working on this for quite a while, now that it is finish where else to put it? Only on my very favorite Political Site -
Laugh at Liberals.
Surveillance Under the USA PATRIOT Act
What is the USA PATRIOT Act?
Just six weeks after the September 11 attacks, a panicked Congress passed the “USA/Patriot Act,” an overnight revision of the nation’s surveillance laws that vastly expanded the government’s authority to spy on its own citizens, while simultaneously reducing checks and balances on those powers like judicial oversight, public accountability, and the ability to challenge government searches in court.
Why Congress passed the Patriot Act
Most of the changes to surveillance law made by the Patriot Act were part of a longstanding law enforcement wish list that had been previously rejected by Congress, in some cases repeatedly. Congress reversed course because it was bullied into it by the Bush Administration in the frightening weeks after the September 11 attack.
The Senate version of the Patriot Act, which closely resembled the legislation requested by Attorney General John Ashcroft, was sent straight to the floor with no discussion, debate, or hearings. Many Senators complained that they had little chance to read it, much less analyze it, before having to vote. In the House, hearings were held, and a carefully constructed compromise bill emerged from the Judiciary Committee. But then, with no debate or consultation with rank-and-file members, the House leadership threw out the compromise bill and replaced it with legislation that mirrored the Senate version. Neither discussion nor amendments were permitted, and once again members barely had time to read the thick bill before they were forced to cast an up-or-down vote on it. The Bush Administration implied that members who voted against it would be blamed for any further attacks - a powerful threat at a time when the nation was expecting a second attack to come any moment and when reports of new anthrax letters were appearing daily.
Congress and the Administration acted without any careful or systematic effort to determine whether weaknesses in our surveillance laws had contributed to the attacks, or whether the changes they were making would help prevent further attacks. Indeed, many of the act’s provisions have nothing at all to do with terrorism.
The Patriot Act increases the governments’ surveillance powers in four areas:
Records searches. It expands the government’s ability to look at records on an individual’s activity being held by a third party. (Section 215)
Secret searches. It expands the government’s ability to search private property without notice to the owner. (Section 213)
Intelligence searches. It expands a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that had been created for the collection of foreign intelligence information (Section 218).
“Trap and trace” searches. It expands another Fourth Amendment exception for spying that collects “addressing” information about the origin and destination of communications, as opposed to the content (Section 214).
1. Expanded access to personal records held by third parties
One of the most significant provisions of the Patriot Act makes it far easier for the authorities to gain access to records of citizens’ activities being held by a third party. At a time when computerization is leading to the creation of more and more such records, Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to force anyone at all - including doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities, and Internet service providers - to turn over records on their clients or customers.
Unchecked power
The result is unchecked government power to rifle through individuals’ financial records, medical histories, Internet usage, bookstore purchases, library usage, travel patterns, or any other activity that leaves a record. Making matters worse:
The government no longer has to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an “agent of a foreign power,” a requirement that previously protected Americans against abuse of this authority.
The FBI does not even have to show a reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity, much less the requirement for “probable cause” that is listed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. All the government needs to do is make the broad assertion that the request is related to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.
Judicial oversight of these new powers is essentially non-existent. The government must only certify to a judge - with no need for evidence or proof - that such a search meets the statute’s broad criteria, and the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.
Surveillance orders can be based in part on a person’s First Amendment activities, such as the books they read, the Web sites they visit, or a letter to the editor they have written.
A person or organization forced to turn over records is prohibited from disclosing the search to anyone. As a result of this gag order, the subjects of surveillance never even find out that their personal records have been examined by the government. That undercuts an important check and balance on this power: the ability of individuals to challenge illegitimate searches.
Why the Patriot Act’s expansion of records searches is unconstitutional
Section 215 of the Patriot Act violates the Constitution in several ways. It:
Violates the Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime.
Violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.
Violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom of speech.
Violates the Fourth Amendment by failing to provide notice - even after the fact - to persons whose privacy has been compromised. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
2. More secret searches
For centuries, common law has required that the government cannot go into your property without telling you, and must therefore give you notice before it executes a search. That “knock and announce” principle has long been recognized as a part of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
The Patriot Act, however, unconstitutionally amends the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to allow the government to conduct searches without notifying the subjects, at least until long after the search has been executed. This means that the government can enter a house, apartment or office with a search warrant when the occupants are away, search through their property, take photographs, and in some cases even seize property - and not tell them until later.
Notice is a crucial check on the government’s power because it forces the authorities to operate in the open, and allows the subject of searches to protect their Fourth Amendment rights. For example, it allows them to point out irregularities in a warrant, such as the fact that the police are at the wrong address, or that the scope of the warrant is being exceeded (for example, by rifling through dresser drawers in a search for a stolen car). Search warrants often contain limits on what may be searched, but when the searching officers have complete and unsupervised discretion over a search, a property owner cannot defend his or her rights.
Finally, this new “sneak and peek” power can be applied as part of normal criminal investigations; it has nothing to do with fighting terrorism or collecting foreign intelligence.
3. Expansion of the intelligence exception in wiretap law
Under the Patriot Act, the FBI can secretly conduct a physical search or wiretap on American citizens to obtain evidence of crime without proving probable cause, as the Fourth Amendment explicitly requires.
A 1978 law called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) created an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement for probable cause when the purpose of a wiretap or search was to gather foreign intelligence. The rationale was that since the search was not conducted for the purpose of gathering evidence to put someone on trial, the standards could be loosened. In a stark demonstration of why it can be dangerous to create exceptions to fundamental rights, however, the Patriot Act expanded this once-narrow exception to cover wiretaps and searches that DO collect evidence for regular domestic criminal cases. FISA previously allowed searches only if the primary purpose was to gather foreign intelligence. But the Patriot Act changes the law to allow searches when “a significant purpose” is intelligence. That lets the government circumvent the Constitution’s probable cause requirement even when its main goal is ordinary law enforcement.
The eagerness of many in law enforcement to dispense with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment was revealed in August 2002 by the secret court that oversees domestic intelligence spying (the “FISA Court”). Making public one of its opinions for the first time in history, the court revealed that it had rejected an attempt by the Bush Administration to allow criminal prosecutors to use intelligence warrants to evade the Fourth Amendment entirely. The court also noted that agents applying for warrants had regularly filed false and misleading information. That opinion is now on appeal.
4. Expansion of the “pen register” exception in wiretap law
Another exception to the normal requirement for probable cause in wiretap law is also expanded by the Patriot Act. Years ago, when the law governing telephone wiretaps was written, a distinction was created between two types of surveillance. The first allows surveillance of the content or meaning of a communication, and the second only allows monitoring of the transactional or addressing information attached to a communication. It is like the difference between reading the address printed on the outside of a letter, and reading the letter inside, or listening to a phone conversation and merely recording the phone numbers dialed and received.
Wiretaps limited to transactional or addressing information are known as “Pen register/trap and trace” searches (for the devices that were used on telephones to collect telephone numbers). The requirements for getting a PR/TT warrant are essentially non-existent: the FBI need not show probable cause or even reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. It must only certify to a judge - without having to prove it - that such a warrant would be “relevant” to an ongoing criminal investigation. And the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.
The Patriot Act broadens the pen register exception in two ways:
“Nationwide” pen register warrants
Under the Patriot Act PR/TT orders issued by a judge are no longer valid only in that judge’s jurisdiction, but can be made valid anywhere in the United States. This “nationwide service” further marginalizes the role of the judiciary, because a judge cannot meaningfully monitor the extent to which his or her order is being used. In addition, this provision authorizes the equivalent of a blank warrant: the court issues the order, and the law enforcement agent fills in the places to be searched. That is a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment’s explicit requirement that warrants be written “particularly describing the place to be searched.”
Pen register searches applied to the Internet
The Patriot Act applies the distinction between transactional and content-oriented wiretaps to the Internet. The problem is that it takes the weak standards for access to transactional data and applies them to communications that are far more than addresses. On an e-mail message, for example, law enforcement has interpreted the “header” of a message to be transactional information accessible with a PR/TT warrant. But in addition to routing information, e-mail headers include the subject line, which is part of the substance of a communication - on a letter; for example, it would clearly be inside the envelope.
The government also argues that the transactional data for Web surfing is a list of the URLs or Web site addresses that a person visits. For example, it might record the fact that they visited “www.aclu.org” at 1:15 in the afternoon, and then skipped over to “www.fbi.gov” at 1:30. This claim that URLs are just addressing data breaks down in two different ways:
Web addresses are rich and revealing content. The URLs or “addresses” of the Web pages we read are not really addresses; they are the titles of documents that we download from the Internet. When we “visit” a Web page what we are really doing is downloading that page from the Internet onto our computer, where it is displayed. Therefore, the list of URLs that we visit during a Web session is really a list of the documents we have downloaded - no different from a list of electronic books we might have purchased online. That is much richer information than a simple list of the people we have communicated with; it is intimate information that reveals who we are and what we are thinking about - much more like the content of a phone call than the number dialed. After all, it is often said that reading is a “conversation” with the author.
Web addresses contain communications sent by a surfer. URLs themselves often have content embedded within them. A search on the Google search engine, for example, creates a page with a custom-generated URL that contains material that is clearly private content, such as: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=sexual+orientation
Similarly, if I fill out an online form - to purchase goods or register my preferences, for example - those products and preferences will often be identified in the resulting URL.
The erosion of accountability
Attempts to find out how the new surveillance powers created by the Patriot Act were implemented during their first year were in vain. In June 2002 the House Judiciary Committee demanded that the Department of Justice answer questions about how it was using its new authority. The Bush/Ashcroft Justice Department essentially refused to describe how it was implementing the law; it left numerous substantial questions unanswered, and classified others without justification. In short, not only has the Bush Administration undermined judicial oversight of government spying on citizens by pushing the Patriot Act into law, but it is also undermining another crucial check and balance on surveillance powers: accountability to Congress and the public.
Non-surveillance provisions
Although this fact sheet focuses on the direct surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act, citizens should be aware that the act also contains a number of other provisions. The Act:
Puts CIA back in business of spying on Americans. The Patriot Act gives the Director of Central Intelligence the power to identify domestic intelligence requirements. That opens the door to the same abuses that took place in the 1970s and before, when the CIA engaged in widespread spying on protest groups and other Americans.
Creates a new crime of “domestic terrorism.” The Patriot Act transforms protesters into terrorists if they engage in conduct that “involves acts dangerous to human life” to “influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.” How long will it be before an ambitious or politically motivated prosecutor uses the statute to charge members of controversial activist groups like Operation Rescue or Greenpeace with terrorism? Under the Patriot Act, providing lodging or assistance to such “terrorists” exposes a person to surveillance or prosecution. Furthermore, the law gives the attorney general and the secretary of state the power to detain or deport any non-citizen who belongs to or donates money to one of these broadly defined “domestic terrorist” groups.
Allows for the indefinite detention of non-citizens. The Patriot Act gives the attorney general unprecedented new power to determine the fate of immigrants. The attorney general can order detention based on a certification that he or she has “reasonable grounds to believe” a non-citizen endangers national security. Worse, if the foreigner does not have a country that will accept them, they can be detained indefinitely without trial.
Julian Says: April 3rd, 2005 at 8:38 pm
Suzanne, I think that if H.L. Mencken was alive today he could not characterize more clearly what our democracy is doing to itself than he did in his essay ‘Last Words’. In that essay he said that democracy “is self-devouring. One cannot observe it objectively without being impressed by its curious distrust of itself—its apparently ineradicable tendency to abandon its whole philosophy at the first sign of strain. I need not point to what happens invariably in democratic states when the national safety is menaced. All the great tribunes of democracy, on such occasions, convert themselves, by a process as simple as taking a deep breath, into despots of an almost fabulous ferocity. Nor is this process confined to times of alarm and terror: it is going on day in and day out. Democracy always seems bent upon killing the thing it theoretically loves. I have rehearsed some of its operations against liberty, the very cornerstone of its political metaphysic. It not only wars upon the thing itself; it even wars upon mere academic advocacy of it.” The so called Patriot Act (they are good at turning our language inside out, aren’t they?) fits perfectly with Mencken’s notion that our democracy is bent on destroying the thing that it theoretically loves. It is particularly disturbing to witness the attacks by those who are threatened by mere academic discussions of contemporary issues and wish to forbid freedom of inquiry on college campuses. Like Lenin and Stalin, conservative pundits (under the control of a neoconservative philosophy that they don’t actually even seem to understand) can be heard daily on our airwaves demanding complete submission to their will. I take heart, however, in a firm conviction that the sleeping giant that the neocons fear the most, the intelligentsia, finally is waking up.
For those who are unfamiliar with how Lenin and Stalin feared the intelligentsia, you may want to see the following link. Perhaps you will see parallels between contemporary anti-intellectualism in the US and the early days of communist rule in Russia. The similarity is uncanny but understandable when you consider that neoconservatives, like Lenin and Stalin, demand total submission to their power and intellectuals historically have been the champions of freedom. http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/attack.html
Suzanne Says: April 4th, 2005 at 5:58 am
Hi Julian,
Thank your for the link and information. I do hope that your predictions or the predictions of the theory that you write about will in truth take place in the near future.
As the RR is or has really invaded Congress, and government.
Suzanne
Julian Says: April 5th, 2005 at 4:04 am
It strikes me as odd that although the so-called “Patriot Act” (I can’t believe it’s called that, it is the ultimate anti-democracy law I can imagine) is in effect that, James D. Guckert, a Republican activist, gained repeated access to the White House press briefing room and presidential press conferences from January of 2003 to January of 2005. He was allowed to work under the assumed name of ‘Jeff Gannon’, a false identity and he is a male prostitute (I think that’s against the law isn’t it? And selling prostitution services via the internet is a fellony, right?). Does anyone understand how this could happen with all of the security clearance required to get White House access? Is the Dept of Homeland Security dysfunctional? Why did the Republicans in congress vote against an investigation of the Guckert matter? It seems like a major security breach, unless the administration did indeed know Gluckert’s true identity and background. Either they knew and didn’t care or a significant security breach was revealed. Anyone have more details that might help clarify this situation?
Bonniem Says: April 5th, 2005 at 4:41 pm
Julian, I can’t give you dates or names, but somewhere since that happened, I understood that he worked for a conservative magazine (or maybe this is someone different) and that it is not that rare that left leaning “reporters”, too , have gotten in. So you are right on this. This is the first that I have heard that he is a male prostitute.
Julian Says: April 5th, 2005 at 7:09 pm
Bonniem, Here is a story from the British paper the Guardian that was published in February. The US corporate media, as we have come to expect, completely missed the ball (the corporate media wouldn’t want to do anything that might upset Bush you know). http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1416370,00.html
The Guardian article provides some information about Gannon/Gluckert’s prostitution activities. He is thought to be the source that revealed the identity of CIA operative Valarie Plame. How Gluckert got access to classfied CIA documents remains a question of vital importance. As you know, Plame’s husband challenged Bush’s information on Iraq and suddenly Plame was identified as a CIA operative by the conservative columnist Robert Novak (see http://healthandenergy.com/outing_of_valarie_plame.htm).
Don’t you think the Bush administration has some explaining to do?
Bonniem Says: April 5th, 2005 at 9:12 pm
Julian, if he was the one to “out” the CIA agent, we don’t know where he got it. It is under investigation, still, I guess. Couldn’t get the URL you referred me to. Will try again later. But to be honest, the British newspapers haven’t alway been exactly on the ball either. So, I don’t know that it will prove anything. It is also my understanding that quite a few knew who she was.
Julian Says: April 6th, 2005 at 3:28 am
I have this funny feeling that tomorrow is going to be a long day for Tom DeLay.
Paul Says: April 6th, 2005 at 9:38 pm
Ah, the beautiful piece of legislation known as the ‘Patriot’ Act. I find it to be one of the scariest things to ever be voted on in my lifetime. Of course, if you are a believer in the VRWC, then this is just another domino in the VRWC’s plans to rule the world. Right….
This idiotic bit of legislature was brought to you via the infamous “Hysteria Bug”, a hideous but short lived disease which afflicts the minds of those who catch it, causing them to act contrary to all princible in the interest of “fixing” the hysteria. This disease has afflicted not only Democratic and Republican lawmakers, but also various factions of the American public, not to mention various factions of the European public. Appropriately enough, the best way to catch this disease is to listen to those who already have it. Symptoms involve, but are not limited to; believing in conspiracies, seeing an enemy around every corner, and attributing life and death importance to things which, in the end, dont matter at all.
Those who incite this disease do so for a cause, usually for thier own ends.
The only cure is reasoned and courteous discussion, which most Americans and especially Europeans are incabable of in this day and age.
Oh, and by the way Julian, I dont know about a mentality of anti-intelligensia in early Russian Communism, but I do know about an anti-religon mentality in both Communism and Facsism. Reminds me alot of what is reflected in the rhetoric of most ‘progressives’ these days.
Julian Says: April 6th, 2005 at 10:57 pm
Bonniem, I don’t think that the public will ever know the Guckert/Gannon story because the republicans voted against investigating the case. I would think that it would be important to get to the bottom of these issues. Gluckert was not even a credible journalist, apparently engages in prostitution (his web site name was militarystud.com), uses a false identity, repeatedly plagarized information taken directly from talking points distributed by republican politicians while presenting them a products of his own journalistic investigations, and yet gets a pass to get into the White House every day. Meanwhile the overwhelming majority of legitimate journalists who apply for credentials are denied access. It seems to me that either being a male prostitute helps one get a daily pass to get into the White House press room every day for two years or someone with some pull in the White House wanted Gluckert in that room for a reason. I am confident that most folks with his background would never stand a chance of getting into the White House. I think we need to ask ourselves, if a democrat was in office when this happened what would I want congress to do? And demand that both parties require as much of themselves as they do of their opponents. It’s called ethics.
Bonniem Says: April 7th, 2005 at 4:31 pm
Julian, what do you mean the republicans voted against investigating. You want to know what would happen if a Democrat was in office? What do you think went on for 8 years before Bush got in. You can come up with more bull than anybody I know in the Real World. I won’t even attempt to answer your comments. You can make up more stuff from your view than anyone can ever defend. And you have the gall to pretend that you are not biased. Liberals have taken over most of the press conferences anyhow, and most of the news leans that way. I am thru to reason with you.
Julian Says: April 7th, 2005 at 5:04 pm
Info for Bonniem
The House Judiciary Committee voted against adopting a resolution demanding Bush agencies turn over all credentialing information related to James D. Guckert 21-10, the discredited conservative reporter and prostitute who wrote under the nom de guerre “Jeff Gannon.”…
full story at http://www.friendsofliberty.com
2. If the media is trying to help the liberals it’s hard to imagine how they could do a worse job of it.
3. Clinton was investigated continuously for the entire 8 years he was in office. Ever heard of Kenneth Starr? In 1994 he took over the White Water probe that had already been going on for 4 years. A single investigation of a 20-year-old Clinton business deal evolved it into TrooperGate, TravelGate, and finally MonicaGate. So Bonniem, your contention that the republicans would let a democratic administration off the hook is inconsistent with the historical facts.
Julian Says: April 7th, 2005 at 5:10 pm
Bonniem: In case you wanted to see how the individual members of the judiciary committee voted on the resolution to investigate the Gannon case, here it is.
Voting in favor of the resolution were: (All Democrats) Rep. Conyers Rep. Berman Rep. Scott Rep. Watt Rep. Jackson-Lee Rep. Waters Rep. Meehan Rep. Schiff Rep. Sanchez Rep. Van Hollen
Voting Against: (All Republicans) Rep. Sensenbrenner Rep. Coble Rep. (Lamar) Smith Rep. Gallegly Rep. Goodlatte Rep. Chabot Rep. Lungren Rep. Jenkins Rep. Cannon Rep. Bachus Rep. Inglis Rep. Hostettler Rep. Green Rep. Keller Rep. Issa Rep. Flake Rep. Pence Rep. Forbes Rep. King Rep. Franks Rep. Gohmert
Not present: Democrats: Rep. Boucher Rep. Nadler Rep. Lofgren Rep. Delahunt Rep. Wexler Rep. Weiner Rep. (Adam) Smith Republicans: Rep. Hyde Rep. Feeney
Julian Says: April 7th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
Bonniem, if there is any other “bull” that you would like documentation on, I will cheerfully provide it. Remember the information I passed along last week about “Curveball”, the administrations drunken info source on Saddam’s WMD program? There is a nice story about that on the CNN website today. I think the mainstream media may be taking their leads from LAL now.
Dave Says: April 7th, 2005 at 9:04 pm
Julian: re your comments in post #11. It is true that the government investigated Clinton about the whole whitewater deal, and the Monica Lewinsky thing. It is true that he did illegal and immoral things, both in his past and during his time in the White House, and if he is going to represent the people and the country in the highest office in the land, he should be accountable for his behavior. It is also true that, just like your contention about how the Repubs are supporting the President or whatever (by voting against the investigation of wrongdoing by this Gannon guy), so too did the Dems support and defend Clinton ad nauseum over HIS wrongdoings. They constantly tried to downplay his role in various illegal, immoral and unethical deals and behaviors perpetrated both before he became President and after, and tried to make the Repubs out to be just a pack of vicious hate-mongers whose only aim was to destroy Clinton. Well guess what…both sides do it and THAT is politics!! If you don’t like it, then get together with the rest of the folks (myself included) who are tired of this bullshit and DEMAND, once and for all, that politicians stop playing these childish games and get on with doing what they were sent to Wash DC to do…which is what we tell them!! Fix the Social Security system or scrap it, stop the deficit spending, lower the taxes, defend our country, and stay the hell out of people’s personal lives and things that don’t involve the goverment!! But that will never happen, because politics is all about “how can I help ME today”. And we, the people, who have the ultimate power, through our ignorance and neglect and failure to keep tabs on what these jackasses are up to, allow it to happen.
And by the way, please don’t try to use that tired old line about how Clinton’s little thing with Monica was personal business and none of OUR business. He wanted to be President, the highest public office in the land, and he lived in MY house…(the taxpayers of the United States own the White House, not the Pres)…and he used his power and prestige in office (MY OFFICE….both physically and politically) to woo and screw someone other than his wife, and then lied about it too!! SO it is my business. I said it then, and I say it now, if a man will lie to the American people and to his very own wife about something like that, what else did he lie about? Makes you kind of wonder!! The only reason he didn’t get away with it like so many other politicians who do it too, is he got caught, and apparently couldn’t get people to cover his ass like JFK and others have done by lying too!!
Bonniem Says: April 7th, 2005 at 9:33 pm
I am not saying that Republicans would let the Democrats off the hook. Why wouldn’t Clinton be investigated for 8 years?! Things kept “popping” up to investigate, but that wouldn’t make any difference. There is partisan politics from each side. You are the one who acts as tho it is one sided. Remember the recent poll of reporters where 80 % admitted they leaned to the left. That comes across in their reporting. So if they are doing a bad job of it - it not because they aren’t trying.
Julian Says: April 8th, 2005 at 2:49 am
Bonniem and Dave, you want catch me defending Clinton. I think that if it’s wrong for one group to do it, it is wrong for the other group as well. My contention is that we must start correcting the problems by asking our own party (It seems I don’t have a party any more, unfortunately) to live up to the standards we set for our opponents.
Julian Says: April 8th, 2005 at 3:30 am
Bonniem, regarding comment 15, I think that the problem is not so much that journalists are not objective, it is just generally they are uninformative. Huge corporations own all of the network news (Time Warner owns CNN, Disney owns ABC, ESPN), Viacom owns CBS, and the Infinity radio network), News Corporation (Rupert Murdoch’s vehicle: Fox TV, the New York Post, HarperCollins) and these corporations totally control the new agendas. If the journalists are liberal, too bad for them. If they express such sentiments they will soon be hunting for work and probably end up wroking at non-profit organizations. These days a reasonably intelligent person can spend half an hour doing their own research at the library and on the internet and develop much deeper understandings of what is going on in the world than one could ever pick up from the corporate news. If you listen to Rush or watch Fox news you can be sure of this, you will be horribly misinformed which, to me, is even worse than being uninformed. Rush and FoxNews get their main information feeds from sources like American Spectator (relatives of mine via marriage, yikes!) or the Washington Times (the Moonies - literally. I am not joking. You can look it up yourself). Listen closely and see who Rush and FoxNews folks quote. It’s just amazing when you know who these people really are. The American Spectator only has a circulation of about 100,000 but its major impact is through the talk radio programs. They funded the attacks on Clinton that you and Dave mentioned, many of which were based on completely fabricated information generated by huge payoffs to unsavory, unethical people. They also funded and published the Swiftboat vet nonsense. You may think I am full of shit but I do know these people pretty intimately. You may not celebrate holidays and weddings with them but you can get some info if you Google William Regnery or Regnery publishing and see what you come up with about these folks who are the source of the information that the right wing is consuming.
Paul Says: April 8th, 2005 at 4:32 pm
Ooh neato, the VRWC is at work and is funded by Mooney. See my previous post for my feelings on conspiracy theories.
Ok Julian, you said you did not have a part anymore, so I’ll bite. What party would you like to be a part of and what would its platforms be?
Paul Says: April 8th, 2005 at 4:51 pm
Julian, if the information was about Clinton and the Swift Boat Info was funded by unsavory and unethical people, I WANT SOME PROOF.
Assume I am too busy to look for it myself. Provide me some links. Prove the information is verifiable. Give me the data. Oh and I want conclusive proof.
Bonniem Says: April 8th, 2005 at 5:32 pm
Well, Julian is good at giving you links, but I don’t know that they are any more credible and than some that he is critical of. I guess it is all in the eye of the beholder. Julian, you need to give us some credit for not being stupid, and for having our own opinion and that we do not have to believe everything we read — even on your links. And why do “you people” keep on harping about the swift boat people? And why,even after Clinton admitted that he had cheated and lied to the country, do “you people” keep calling it a “vast right wing conspiracy”?. And why do you like to argue?
Bonniem Says: April 8th, 2005 at 5:39 pm
Sorry, It was Dave not Paul that suggested we hold our elected officials accountable to do the work they were elected to do.
Julian Says: April 8th, 2005 at 6:46 pm
Well Dave and Bonniem I think we’ve put our finger on a problem that I can’t solve for you. You seem hopelessly lazy-minded. I don’t mind providing information to you but you do have to do some thinking yourself too. I am not optimistic about your chances of understanding what is going on around you.
Paul Says: April 8th, 2005 at 7:56 pm
Come on Julian, dont let Bonnie get under your skin. But still, answer my questions. I am really ready to discuss this rationally, but only if you can provide me some unbiased data to support your statements. Since you have made it plain to others in the past that you do not like people asking info about you, let us also not try to bring in the whole ‘I am related’ thing unless you are willing to provide something to back that up also.
See, to have a truly rational discussion, we must provide information to back up our position. When it comes to Clinton, I think the Starr Report provides the neccessary info (an arguement for bias could be made, however it must have been legit enough, as congress voted to impeach Clinton).
The case regarding “Swiftboat Veterans for Truth” was a little less solid, I must admit, but at this point I am willing to listen to a non-biased point of view.
Dave Says: April 8th, 2005 at 8:44 pm
Well Julian, as per your comments in post #22, I see this as nothing more than you once again insuating that you are right and we are wrong, and because we fail to see things your way we are lazy minded and don’t do any thinking for ourselves!! And anyway, where in my most recent post did I ever give you any reason to attack my ability to think or reason for myself? I was talking about holding our elected officials accountable and responsible and making this political system work the way is was meant to by our founding fathers, and somehow you interpreted that to mean that I don’t have enough brains and motivation to think for myself?? How do you get that exactly?
Again I have to say that it seems as if you are insinuating that because I (and bonnie and others) do not agree with you on all issues, that makes us ignorant and misinformed and “lazy-thinking”. Interesting that you call yourself a free thinker and don’t align yourself with the liberals, but you still treat other people just like they do…as someone to be ignored if they don’t see things your way.
Julian Says: April 8th, 2005 at 10:38 pm
Fellow LAL posters, my wife is quite displeased to learn of my conversations here and has requested (demanded) that I bid you farewell. Good luck.
Bonniem Says: April 9th, 2005 at 1:57 am
Bye, Julian, you will be missed.
Suzanne Says: April 14th, 2005 at 12:00 am
Hey Julian
I read that link, also sent it to my (Oops!) Friend in the UK
I will email you with my thoughts and his thoughts, very much go along with yours
Suzanne
Suzanne Says: April 18th, 2005 at 7:03 pm
As I have been busy doing things that I must do.
I am behind on reading the comments to this Post I made, so have copied and will read today.
I really appreicate all the activity on this post, especiall to dear Julian, you are wonderful.
I post you reinforce. What a team and we do not even know each other.
Suzanne
Oh yes Julian, my friend in the UK well as you wrote so did he
Great minds think alike
Suzanne Says: May 9th, 2005 at 7:44 am
Hey Julian you read the Guardian?
WOW I am impressed
Great honest reporting
Oh gee, some will not agree, remember The United Kingdom is not liking the Religious Right
But GReat News YEAH!
Honest not like our news
Rob Says: May 19th, 2005 at 4:05 am
flowers in my hair, i hope you know that plagiarism is a bad, bad thing. everything you wrote on the patriot act is from secondary sources. i do commend you though for being so up to date with policies that affect us americans, but do you have any thoughts of your own on the subject.
Suzanne Says: May 19th, 2005 at 9:57 am
Yes, of course it was almost every thing political that we write if it contains facts, these fact must come from sources, and these sources are newspapers, people articles
but nothing that I wrote did I not receive permission to use it, so dear that is not plagiarisms. Look up the word
I think, no I wonder is it plagiarism when we quote the bible?
Gosh, we are all in trouble on this site.
I stated, and try to reread, that I had done a lot of research and time creating that commentary; do you think that all of that information just came out of this blond head?
Hey, how about the Bill of Rights I have on my site is that also plagiarism?
How about the words “In God We Trust” Is that?
Grow up person, find something worthwhile to comment on instead of trying to nick pick on shit and get to the real topic we are all trying to solve, STUPIDY!! AND BAD SPELLING ME real bad
Suzanne
PS:
Oh I never once stated that I and only I conjured up each and every statement in that commentary, want to know where I got a lot of my information?
Oh thoughts of my own? I thought that is what I have been so wordy about, would not have used those sources had they not also been my thoughts, and there were also a lot of my thoughts intertwined within the other information.
Do you need reading glasses or do you make it a habit of spending your days checking everything everyone write to see if it came from another source. I have gobs of that stuff, and now going to throw gobs of it on this site just to keep you busy.
Plagarism my Ass!
Suzanne Says: June 1st, 2005 at 11:26 am
And the ball keeps bouncing
Administration Asks Appeals Court To Compel ISP Searches
The Bush Administration wants to compel ISPs to turn over information about subscribers as part of its fight against terrorism.
By Mark Sherman, The Associated Press
May 30, 2005
URL: http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=163702011
WASHINGTON (AP)–The Bush administration asked a federal appeals court Friday to restore its ability to compel Internet service providers to turn over information about their customers or subscribers as part of its fight against terrorism.
The legal filing with the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in New York comes amid a debate in Congress over renewal of the Patriot Act and whether to expand the FBI’s power to seek records without the approval of a judge or grand jury.
U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero of New York last year blocked the government from conducting secret searches of communications records, saying the law that authorized them wrongly barred legal challenges and imposed a gag order on affected businesses. The ruling came in a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union and an Internet access firm that received a national security letter (NSL) from the FBI demanding records. The identity of the firm remains secret.
The government was authorized to pursue communications records as part of a 1986 law. Its powers were enhanced by the Patriot Act in 2001.
The administration said the judge’s ruling was off the mark because the company did mount a legal challenge to the demand for records. “Yet in this very case, the recipient of the NSL did precisely what the NSLs supposedly prevent recipients from doing,” the filing said.
The law’s ban on disclosing that such a letter has been received also is appropriate because of legitimate security concerns, the government said.
But Attorney Jameel Jaffer said the law does not contain a provision to challenge the FBI’s demand for documents. The firm filed the lawsuit to challenge the law’s constitutionality on the grounds that it doesn’t contain such a provision, he said.
“Most people who get NSLs don’t know they can bring a challenge in court because the statute doesn’t say they can,” he said. “No one has filed a motion to quash in 20 years.”
The ban on disclosure is so broad that the initially filed the suit was under seal and negotiated for weeks on a version that could be released to the public.
Previously censored material released several months after Marrero’s ruling included innocuous material the government wanted withheld, the ACLU said, including the phrase “national security” and this sentence from a statement by an FBI agent: “I am a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”
Suzanne
Suzanne Says: June 3rd, 2005 at 7:53 am
The Patriot Act,
Oh Rob, I hope taking and using information from The United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights - to back up my statements is not to you considered plagiarism.
As you did consider the same type of items in my commentary Plagiarism, I also used information from The Washington Post, but not enought and reworded as to read different.
Might be nice if you explained what you thing is plagiarism
President Bush is promoting legislation that destroys freedom here in the states even as he sends troops abroad under the rubric of freedom. His words say he wants to give the Iraqi people freedom, but his actions say he wants to expunge the freedoms of the American people. In fact, more freedoms have been lost under G.W. Bush in less than four years, than were lost under Bill Clinton in eight!
The Patriot Act is emphatically unconstitutional! It virtually eviscerates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Bill of Rights. It grants egregiously unconstitutional powers to federal police agencies (which are themselves largely unconstitutional in nature) and sets the wheels in motion to turn the United States of America into a socialist-style police state.
Consider also President Bush’s announced desire to grant millions of illegal aliens, mostly from Mexico, amnesty. Could anything be more unconstitutional than that?
Article 4, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution states, “The United States shall protect each State against invasion.” But, ladies and gentlemen, that is exactly what is happening. The southern border states are being invaded, and President Bush wants to grant legal status to the invaders! It’s insane!
This was illustrated just recently when our U.S. soccer team played in Zapopan, Mexico. As “The Star-Spangled Banner” was played, thousands of Mexicans shouted, “Osama! Osama! Osama!” I wonder how many of those Mexicans shouting support for bin Laden will be living freely and legally in the United States in just a few months as a result of Bush’s “Guest Worker” program? The truth is, Bush’s amnesty proposal should be regarded as treasonous!
Mr. Jack Says: June 4th, 2005 at 2:12 am
Suzanne, The freedoms lost are a result of Martial Law, due to the 9/11 attacks. The concept was designed to rout out enemies of the state, though I agree with you, it would be very easy for some one in bush’s administration to take it too far, but for now I don’t think it’s too much to worry about as long as American citizens aren’t being put into death camps, and as long as those freedoms are returned.
Suzanne Says: June 4th, 2005 at 4:55 am
Mr. Jack
Have you read the bill now trying to pass?
H.R. 1528
This bill would put many of us in prision, even though you do not and I do not do drugs, you must tell all, wear a wire, check out the bill,
Also the ID Act.
Mr. Jack I have a lot more on this subject.
and what is next, Death Camps, well getting close
if a husbands smokes pot and the wife does not and she does not tell all - 2 - 10 years in prision for the wife.
If your child, brother, Mother, Father, whom ever it does not matter, you have exactly 24 hours to report the offense to law enforcement, and in addition provide “full assistance” in the investigation, apprehension and prosecution of the people or person involved.
Just think a bit Mr Jack, use the example I have above, So the wife must tell the police, and also help them catch and arrest and put away her husband. This is going a bit too far, There is a law that a wife or husband does not have to testify in court against their spouse, what heppened to that law?
What is next? Maybe not the Death Camps, but this is just the begining
Suzanne
Mr. Jack Says: June 4th, 2005 at 6:37 pm
I agree, things are getting a bit out of hand, but I like to take the wait and see approach to things like this, after all, it is martial law, and if it goes too far, then there’s always a nice 2 word phrase to counter it, Civil-Revolt.
Suzanne Says: June 5th, 2005 at 6:15 am
Well, I must admit you do have a point. Guess getting myself all up in an uproar, is self defeating.
Civil-Revolt, that might be interesting.
Know something Mr. Jack, these days are so much taking me back to the Vietnam days, just different players, much more serious issues, but all in all, it is a government run amuck.
What else can I say. Wait and see, yes, I am not going to protest in the streets, not my syle.
I am though staying as informed as much which is possible, and OK, will take the wait and see while doing the research, and of course playing and photographing and things like that.
Did you edit that one commentary for me?
Suzanne
Suzanne Says: June 25th, 2005 at 10:16 am
OK Mr Jack
It is out of hand
now what
or should I first tell you what it is I know?
Suzanne
Not writing much on this site, in comments guess I am not liked,
guess no one understands the basic comcept all points to one item
The Bill of Rights
Think about it
OK I am shutting up
He got some good stuff on my site, at least in the last four months over 10,000 people have enjoyed my wacko words
Suzanne Says: June 25th, 2005 at 10:19 pm
A Significant Patriot Act Victory
Late last week, the House of Representatives voted 238 to 187 to deny funding for FBI demands under the Patriot Act for the library or book store records of innocent Americans without any reason to suspect them of wrongdoing. Forty Republicans joined Democratic members of Congress in support of the bill by Congressman Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
The vote was a significant setback for the administration, which is pulling out all the stops in its efforts to make the entire Patriot Act permanent and even to expand the law by allowing the FBI to demand personal records without any prior review by a judge. Although this appropriations bill still has to clear the Senate and survive a threatened presidential veto, the support it received among both Republicans and Democrats means that efforts to reform the Patriot Act stand an excellent chance of passing this year.
Some of us care enough to stand up and speak when and where it matters.
Suzanne
The battle is not over just the first fight we won
Eric Says: December 12th, 2006 at 11:21 pm
I agree with that last statement