When Kerry said "There are good parts of the Patriot Act" he lost my vote

[skjpm]

He said this after SOTU. At that point, I was reconsidering him, but when he said that, he reminded me of why I didn't like him in the first place. If all we're going to hear is that "Bush's ideas are pretty good, but could be better," what's the point? I want a guy who says "The Patriot Act is a piece of crap and needs to be thrown out. Then, maybe we can come up with something that works." I support Dean because he is more likely to say that than Kerry. And I don't care if he screams it, as long as he screams the truth.

[robsul82]

1. Hence the "UNELECTABILITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!" of J. Forbes Kerry.

"Well, you know, Mr. President, I thought that was a good idea, and I supported that by voting for it. But I think it could be better..."

*cut to Smirky smirking*

Oh, what fun those debates would be.

Later.

RJS

[sangha]

3. Tell that to the Iowa Dems

most of whom voted for a candidate that voted for the PATRIOT ACT

[robsul82]

9. And 50 million Americans - not just partisans in a single Midwest state...

...voted Bush in 2000.

Later.

RJS

[sangha]

2. There are good points to the PATRIOT Act

In fact, many of them were written under the Clinton administration in reaction to a report on terrorism, commissioned by Clinton.

Don't you think making it easier for the FBI and the CIA to share information about terrorists both here and abroad is a good idea? It was a good idea when Clinton proposed it.

And it's disingenous to imply that Kerry said "Bush's ideas are pretty good, but could be better". Kerry said THE PATRIOT ACT (not Bush*) had some good POINTS (not "ideas")

[hlthe2b]

7. I personally would like to hear Kerry tell us what he meant, which parts

he'd remove and how he would change it, before I'd castigate him for his statement.

[sangha]

11. An eminently reasonable request

I would also like to hear about it. Im a Kerry supporter, but I have to admit that the PATRIOT Act vote was not his finest hour

[robsul82]

13. 'Tis true. I'd like to hear it myself.

Must...tell...Dean...to...ask...tonight...

Later.

RJS

[Printer70]

15. One Positive Aspect

...is facillitating the sharing of information between intelligence agenices. The rest of the stuff: roving wiretaps, military tribunals, crackdown on charities sucks.

[papau]

76. and tracking off shore money is needed - but the GOP hides from IRS

using the same methods as the terrorists -

so I like that part of law!

:-)

[TheDonkey]

4. Ok, vote for someone who like ALL of the Patriot Act

by voting for bush.

[DuctapeFatwa]

5. Well, to be fair, he probably hasn't read it. He's a Senator.

They just vote yes on this stuff, they don't read it.

It's a very long act.

[redqueen]

34. LOL

And isn't that the saddest part of all?

Oh well.

[edzontar]

62. The TRUTH is spoken!!!! What they read is some polls, not the bills

Then they vote for the one they think will make them more "Electable."

AND acceptable to the coroprate criminals who run WDC.

No more rights for you, Mister and Mrs, Weirdo--I got an election to win.

[Snivi Yllom]

80. BWAHAHAHAHAHA

soooooooooooooooooooo true.

[beaconess]

87. Do you think Dean has read it?

[FreeperSlayer]

6. ABB!

BUSH OUT!

[eyesroll]

8. There are hundreds of pages in the Patriot Act.

There's going to be something good in hundreds of pages.

99 Senators voted for the Patriot Act. (Russ Feingold was the lone holdout. Paul Wellstone voted for the Patriot Act.)

As long as someone says "get rid of the crap," I'm OK whether their complete position is chuck the bad/keep the good or throw the whole thing out and start over.

BTW, Dean is for that same thing as Kerry -- chucking the bad parts and keeping the good.

(Disclaimer: Dean supporter, don't much care for Kerry, but will vote for him in November if that's who the nominee is.)

[blm]

10. You're plain wrong. There were ideas in the Patriot Act that were from

Clinton's fight against terrorism that the GOP blocked back then.

9-11 happened because laws either weren't being enforced by the Bush administration or they weren't in place thanks to the GOP obstruction of Clinton's measures.

Kerry wants to repeal parts of it, or did you miss that?

btw...you backed Dean even though he was on record SUGGESTING a Patriot Act 3 days after 9-11. Equal outrage?

[Cocoa]

12. I think you're in the minority

it seems that you agree with the consensus of the pundits that Kerry's nuance is a bad thing.

One thing Iowa tells me, along with comments from ordinary voters, is that most voters are smarter than the whores give them credit for.

[DuctapeFatwa]

14. Indeed he is. The Patriot Act and the Crusade are both very popular

with the mainstream voting class, regardless of party affiliation.

[Cocoa]

22. the Patriot Act is extremely unpopular

especially among the democrats.

As far as I know, every candidate is calling for changes to it.

[DuctapeFatwa]

27. I see no people in the streets. Checked the DC Webcam

No masses storming the White House. Only one member of Congress voted agains it.

If it were not very popular, don't you think the candidates would be doing a little bit more than "calling for changes" to it?

The congress is about to vote to extend the thing.

[Cocoa]

36. candidates are constantly getting asked about it

typical was last night, a voter asked Clark, he said he didn't like it, and the audience applauded.

Also at the SOTU, very extraordinary when the dems applauded when Bush said it would expire.

[DuctapeFatwa]

42. All but one member of congress voted for it without reading it. Please

post a list of those who have been recalled for malfeasance as a result.

[Cocoa]

50. you've put your finger on where we disagree

you think that concern about an issue is identical to punishing politicians. I don't, and it seems I'm not alone.

[DuctapeFatwa]

64. In the US the people have right of redress. Politicians are EMPLOYEES

of the people. Punishment has nothing to do with it.

The bulk of the voting class approves of the Patriot Act, and they approve of their elected representatives decision to vote for it without reading it.

If some of them are not 100% in agreement, neither their number nor their degree of discontent rises to the level that would cause them to seek redress.

[sangha]

43. Yes, Dem voters ask about it

They also ask about IWR. Then they go and vote for candidates that voted for both IWR and the PATRIOT Act.

Bottom line: People are concerned about the PATRIOT Act, but not enough to keep them from voting for a candidate. The initial posters claim (and subsequent agreement from some) that the PATRIOT Act will lose votes for Kerry is contradicted by reality.

[skjpm]

18. I don't think it's nuance--I think it's spinelessness

I hope we can say that word on this forum. Kerry is, for me, the epitome of what is wrong with the Democrats--this sort of "Bush is good, but we're better" approach which gets us nowhere. Bush is wrong and I think evil, and I don't think a nuanced approach is going to get that across. Of course I would vote for Kerry in the general election, but he's not going to get my vote in the primary. He's not the one I want representing the Democratic party.

[sangha]

19. If you had a strong argument

you wouldn't have to pretend that Kerry said "Bush* has some good ideas" and "Bush is good, but we're better"

A number of posters have pointed out that the PATRIOT Act allows intel agencies to share data on terrorism, and that's a good thing. You have not even tried to refute the FACT that the PATRIOT Act DOES contain some good points. All we've gotten so far are slogans like "spineless". I assume "Bush*-lite" and "cockroaches" are not far behind.

[skjpm]

24. Mein Kampf has good parts too

The point is, you don't keep bringing the good parts up if you want to make a case against it. Why not just say it's a piece of crap? Why defend it at all? Say "I could carve a better anti-terrorism bill out of a banana."

[sangha]

26. Mein Kampf isn't law. It's a book

The point is, you don't keep bringing the good parts up if you want to make a case against it.

The point is, you tell the truth, and the truth is that the PATRIOT Act DOES contain some good things. Even you won't even try to dispute that.

Why not just say it's a piece of crap?

Because it''s not a piece of crap. Some of it sucks. And some of it's good. Even you won't dispute that.

Why defend it at all?

Because some of it is good. And even you agree.

Say "I could carve a better anti-terrorism bill out of a banana."

We are not talking about Hitler OR a banana.

[Cocoa]

29. because it's true

I want to hear what the candidates honestly think about the issues.

With Kerry, it's especially important, since he used to be a prosecutor, and he's on the Intelligence Committee, and wrote a book on terrorism.

Same with Clark, I want him to be honest about his views on depleted uranium and the School of the Americas, and bombing in Vieques. I don't want surprises if he gets elected.

edit: depleted uranium, not deleted uranium. :-)

[barbaraann]

20. I agree with you.

The crucial point is that the Patriot Act is overwhelmingly horrible.

[beaconess]

46. Really?

Please tell us what parts are overwhelmingly bad and what parts are good.

[Cocoa]

23. that's what I'm talking about

I think most voters don't think that way. I know I don't, and the way Iowa turned out supports that guess.

[Forkboy]

16. It was another dumbass vote

by someone who we're told knows better.

[Iverson]

17. Excuse me ...

... I've taken a bit of an interest since being accused of being out to get Kerry. I'm not, by the way; I just disagree with approval of the IWR wherever it may have occurred.

Could you please provide a link to the statement you cited?

[Iverson]

90. skjpm, are you there?

A link to the item would be welcome. P-M me, if you prefer not to post. Thank you in advance.

[genius]

21. Even the biggest opponents of U.S.A.-Patriot admit that there are

some good parts to the bill. Kucinich's Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act is designed to repeal the objectionable parts.

I've read U.A.A. - Patriot and feel we could do without the whole thing. However, it is a very,very long bill that includes a phenomenal amount of stuff and not absolutely everything is fully objectionable.

[Cocoa]

25. even Al Gore

his MoveOn speech was considered by almost everyone to be a blistering attack on the Patriot Act, but he says there are some good parts.

Gore said "on balance" the Act was a mistake.

He said something similar about Bush's preemptive doctrine. Condemned it,but conceded there was a "new practical imperative" or some similar phrase which was caused by Sept. 11.

[sangha]

28. And Dean and Dennis Kucinich

And Sen Wellstone voted for it too.

[redqueen]

35. Um, no, Kucinich did not.

Thank you very much.

He has a policy of reading bills before he votes for them. SO he knew better.

[JVS]

37. Neither did Dean

[Forkboy]

40. 1 out of 3 ain't bad

[sangha]

47. You're all wrong

Try reading the thread. I listed Dean, Kucinich as agreeing that there are good points to the PATRIOT Act, as evidenced by their policy of repealing the bad parts and leacving the good parts.

I did NOT say that Dean and DK voted for it. Wellstone is the only one of the three that I said voted for it.

[redqueen]

49. OK I see it now - but you're still wrong

Kucinich wants to repeal it and replace it. He says there are good parts, and I think he's said before that he'd repeal parts, but in the end I think his preferred position is to trash it and replace it.

The post I responded to was very misleading (read it again)... more words might have added a bit of clarity.

[sangha]

58. "He says there are good parts"

Thank you for corroborating my assertion. That was the point. People are criticizing Kerry for saying there are "good parts". Meanwhile, all of the other candidates seem to agree.

But you are right about one thing - I could have been clearer. Sorry for the confusion.

[redqueen]

67. Yes inded, it's all perception.

I just remembered a song about it... God I loved Sesame Street as a kid... or was that The Electric Company?... but I digress.

Yes, Kerry doesn't deserve to get slammed so hard for this, but I certainly think someone should call his campaign and explain why it's important to appear to be more staunchly opposed to the bad parts of that bill.

[sangha]

70. I'm definitely down with that

explain why it's important to appear to be more staunchly opposed to the bad parts of that bill.

[redqueen]

41. Yes

But it's kinda weak, since he couldn't. :)

Not saying he would have, but rather that he couldn't.

You would do better to find some quotes from him right after it was passed, with him saying what an outrage it was. That would work for me. :)

[sangha]

48. Dean also thinks there are good parts to the PATRIOT Act

as demonstrated by his position that only certain parts of the PATRIOT Act should be repealed.

[redqueen]

54. I think anyone familiar with intelligence agrees

that there are good parts which we need.

I still say trashing it and starting from scratch is not only less complicated, but also will be more reassuring to voters and provide the clearest contrast to the bushistas.

[sangha]

59. I don't disagree with that

There are lots of ways to skin a cat, and I'm not interested in the details.

[sangha]

56. Here's what had to say about civil liberties on 9/13/2001

Dean's comments on civil liberties cause alarm
http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/33681.html

" Gov. Howard Dean's call for a “re-evaluation” of some of America's civil liberties following this week's terrorist attacks was criticised Thursday by a Vermont Law School professor....

Dean said Wednesday he believed that the attacks and their aftermath would “require a re-evaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties. I think there are going to be debates about what can be said where, what can be printed where, what kind of freedom of movement people have and whether it's OK for a policeman to ask for your ID just because you're walking down the street.”

Dean said he had not taken a position on these questions. Asked whether he meant that specific rights described in the Bill of Rights — the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution — would have to be trimmed, the governor said: “I haven't gotten that far yet. I think that's unlikely, but I frankly haven't gotten that far. Again, I think that's a debate that we will have.” ...

“It's why they attacked us,” he continued. “I think our freedom is what they find so threatening, our freedom and the power that I think results directly from that freedom.” "

They attacked us for our freedom? Does that sound familiar?

[JVS]

53. He is not as distinguished in his opposition as Kucinich

and I would not claim such a thing. But to Dean's credit he did not go with Bush on this issue.

[beaconess]

73. He didn't vote against it, either

In fact, we don't know what Dean would really have done since he wasn't called upon to make the difficult choice that Kucinich and the others had to make.

That's why Kucinich's anti-war props are so much more credible than Dr. Dean. It's easy to stand off to the side and, once the direction of the political winds are clear, claim you would have done what seems to be the right thing. DK didn't have that luxury and, even though he's not my first choice, I have enormous respect for him because of that.

[beaconess]

52. I don't believe that Kucinich read the bill before voting

not a slam at all. Just a reality. They cannot possibly read all of this stuff. That's why they have staffs - Legislative Directors, Legislative Assistants, etc. read these things and then give their bosses breakdowns of the important parts and give their recommendations, answer the member's questions, etc. The amount of detail in their briefing varies from member to member and issue to issue. I have not doubt that Kucinich familiarized himself thoroughly with the bill's provisions, but I don't believe for a minute he read the entire thing. Frankly, I don't want my representatives wasting that much of their time reading these long documents. If they did, they'd have no time to do anything else.

[redqueen]

57. Your nitpick is duly noted ;-)

;)

Not sure he didn't read it (it's not that bad, c'mon - what a couple hours of reading?!), but I would not be aghast if he meant that he made himself thoroughly familiar with all aspects of a bill before signing. :)


(edited to add the winky smiley in the subject line, so my tone wouldn't be mistaken for seriousness)

[DuctapeFatwa]

32. because he is a politician, and the bush doctrine is also very popular

The President enjoys broad bipartisan support for his aggressive prosecution of the war on terror. American voters understand that this is a different era, and a different kind of war.

The candidates are familiar with George Wallace's 1958 resolution, even if the voters aren't, and no "electable" candidate, or even anyone who wants to keep their political career intact, can afford to let bush "out-terror" them.

You ain't seen nothing yet.

[Cocoa]

45. even the ACLU, then

the ACLU is not a politician, and they deserve a lot of credit for raising awareness of the issue.

But they are careful to be precise about their criticism, and their approach is constructive instead of punitive. They are pushing for specific provisions to be cancelled, and they avoid hyperbole about it.

[DuctapeFatwa]

55. Yes, support for both Patriot Act and crusade is overwhelming

and the ACLU, as you poin out, is not a politician, but they are in their own way, politic.

And criticism of the Patriot Act is considered by many Americans to be soft on terror at best and terrorism itself at worst.

Given the current climate, anyone who wishes to criticize the regime or regime decrees must word their criticism very carefully.

[Cocoa]

61. that;s what makes them credible

and therefore gives them a chance to bring about the changes that are absolutely necessary.

:toast:

[DuctapeFatwa]

69. LOL and I think you will find that those absolutely necessary changes

will include the invasion of Iran and Syria, a solidifying of the occupation of Pakistan, the extension of Patriot I and the Secret Provisions of Patriot II. And Patriot III is just around the corner.

It's a different era, alright, and Americans are united in the war on terror.

[redqueen]

78. Stop it!

LOL you're scaring me!

There are ways criminals could circumvent detection using cell phones, the internet, etc. -- that needed to be addressed.

This is why candidates should clearly state what is needed and what is crap.

[edzontar]

68. DT--I agree with you in general, but renewal of Patriot got booed

By a whole (Dem) section of the chamber at the SOTU the other night...

Pepel like it a lot less than they used to.

I have seen shows attacking it on TV--"The Practice," for one, insults it every week--so there is SOME vocal opposition, in the ENTERTAINMENT media, at least.

[DuctapeFatwa]

72. And it is great to see any small objection to it, but if you watch Fox

which stays in business because people watch it and like it, there has been quite a bit of criticism of those who "were disrespectful to the President."

Remember you are talking about people who take off their shoes and stand around for hours at airports, and say cheerfully they don't mind because it is so important to be safe from the threat of terror in the skies, and then they put their butane lighter in their pocket and get on the plane.

[beaconess]

74. Not quite

What got booed was renewal of the portions of the Patriot Act that Edwards and others insisted be sunseted. The Patriot Act itself is not up for renewal. It is law and will be unless and until it is repealed. Some of the more controversial portions of it are due to sunset in 2005 - THAT's what Bush is pushing to renew, not the entire act.

[bigtree]

30. There is good and bad in most bills. The recent ones are compromises

with the republican majority to avoid having our only participation in legislation expressed as a 'no' vote.

Most of the Patriot act amends existing federal statutes that were targeted by conservatives before the 9-11 terrorist attacks. (Like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was enacted in the wake of FBI surveillance of U.S. citizens in the '60's and the '70's) This national security intelligence tool is now being recklessly manipulated in the administration's zeal to prosecute their cynical "war on terrorism."

The FISA was sponsored in the ‘60's by Sen. Edward Kennedy and others in an attempt to reign in warrantless surveillance. But the FBI and the NSA have used the act to set up a secret courts and have perverted the act to conduct surveillance for domestic criminal investigations in addition to their foreign counterintelligence probes. http://home.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/fiscshort.html

The FISA court and the Court of Review authorize government wiretaps in foreign intelligence investigations. Under FISA, all hearings and decisions are conducted in secret. The government is normally the only party to FISA proceedings and the only party that can appeal to the Supreme Court.

In an appeal, the ACLU argued that,"These fundamental issues should not be finally decided by courts that sit in secret, do not ordinarily publish their decisions, and allow only the government to appear before them."

The ACLU and its supporters have asserted that some of their members and many other Americans are currently subject to illegal surveillance, noting that the FBI has already targeted its members in numerous other ways. Under the FISA statute, a U.S. citizen may be subject to a FISC surveillance order for political statements and views that are determined to be unpopular by the secret Court of Review.

So this administration has used the Patriot Act, and the FISA to subvert the constitution and evicerate rights, far outside of the mandate of Congress; far outside of their intentions expressed in the legislation. It happens. Sometimes presidents exceed the authority given to them by Congress.

Kennedy's not a dupe for passing the FISA. The other Democrats aren't dupes for expecting the Patriot Act to be used without recrimination or guile.

[redqueen]

31. I dunno

I think there may be some parts which actually were needed. I'm suspicious, and would like to see the details, but from what I've read there were a few updates that were needed.

I think we can safely say, though, that throwing it out and writing a new, better bill, which contains what's needed without trampling all over the constitution would be a much safer route than saying we should keep parts of PATRIOT USA.

Too many people (libertarians, independents, and republicans included) hate the hell out of that bill, and I don't think we should throw away the ability to stand 100% opposed to bush on it come Nov.

[absyntheNsugar]

33. As much as I am not a big Kerry or PATRIOT act fan...

there are some good parts to the act. Giving money to local law enforcement and first response teams is much needed, and centralizing the police databases can only help us. You know, the parts that aren't an affront to the US Constitution.

[redqueen]

38. Oh and by the way - Ben Franklin Patriot Act

Doesn't that bill, which Kucinich wrote, do exactly as I said should be done in my post above?

Specifically, it contains the needed provisions without all the fascist ones?

I love my candidate. A lot. :)

[bigtree]

44. Rep Kucinich's webcast was a breath of fresh air

after the SOTU. Good tone. Good teaching.

[redqueen]

60. Yes, I agree

So you can see how we who support him are very, very, loyal and devoted.

How often does a politican like this make himself available for character assassination for the good of this country?

[bigtree]

Aw, you know, I think all of the candidates are for the good

of the country. Rep. Kucinich is uncommonly decent. He's a good teacher also. I understand that he would mend, not end the Patriot Act. In other words, keep the White House from making the odious provisions permanent.

[Bushknew]

39. I don’t trust anyone who puts

political strategy over principal. Dems who voted for the war are
not leaders, they are politicians.

God forbid Kerry gets the nomination, we will have another Al Gore candidate in 2004
where he agreed with W on many critical issues.

[zulchzulu]

51. Bumpersticker politics are intellectually dishonest

Many sections of the Patriot Act will sunset (which means goes away) on January 1, 2004. As for the "good parts", Kerry had something to say about this exact subject:

"Much of what is in Patriot Act are good ideas.  The Act increased penalties for terrorists, limited the statute of limitations for terrorist crimes, and allowed for greater prosecution of overseas acts against America.  I fought to include important money laundering restrictions to clamp down on the cash flowing to terrorist enterprises.  I had been pushing for these ideas since the late nineties – and after September 11th they were more important than ever.

I voted for the Patriot Act right after September 11th – convinced that – with a sunset clause – it was the right decision to make.  It clearly wasn’t a perfect bill – and it had a number of flaws – but this wasn’t the time to haggle.  It was the time to act."

But George Bush and John Ashcroft abused the spirit of national action after the terrorist attacks.  They have used the Patriot Act in ways that were never intended and for reasons that have nothing to do with terrorism.  That’s why, as President, I will propose new anti-terrorism laws that advance the War on Terror while ending the assault on our basic rights.


http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1201.html

[sangha]

66. "increased penalties for terrorists"????

1) "limited the statute of limitations for terrorist crimes"

2) "allowed for greater prosecution of overseas acts against America."

3) "money laundering restrictions to clamp down on the cash flowing to terrorist enterprises"

How awful of that evil Kerry!! What evil will he do next?

[He loved Big Brother]

63. My sig line says it all

This thread from last July regarding the PATRIOT ACT shows me just how important this issue was and still is when making my choice for who to throw my support to- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=6929

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

65. What else could you expect? From a guy still defending the IWR.

Like most cheap politicians, he's trying to be all things to all voters. A little war, a little fascism, a little pizza, a bagel, and some southen fried chicken.

The sort of good news is that it won't work. The bad news is that if the Dems are foolish enough to nominate we'll be stuck the Goober-in-Chief for the next 4 years.

[bigtree]

88. I would expect

civility in this debate, without the name-calling.

[redqueen]

89. Dagnabbit

I never take a lunch but rarely miss it.

Now I'm hungry!

:)

[poopyjr]

71. You must not like Nadine Strossen either, the president of the ACLU.

According to her, only a small number of provisions in it need to be repealed. Not the whole thing.

[beaconess]

75. Insistence that the entire bill be tossed reveals a lack of understanding

about complex legislation, not to mention, what's in the law itself Interestingly, it seems that those who are demanding that the entire thing be repealed are far less knowledgeable about its provisions - good and bad - than those who are urging a more surgical approach to the issue.

[Cheswick2.0]

77. If you don't like Kerry's position on an issue , just wait 24 hours

it will change.

[poopyjr]

83. Confederate flag and taxes?

oh wait....

[sangha]

84. Medicare and Affirmative Action

whoops...

[sangha]

85. Yucca Mountain anyone?

Wait, that's not Kerry either!

[blm]

86. Do you have a link to back up that charge?

.

[mot78]

79. There are good parts in the Patriot Act

Like information sharing between the CIA and the FBI. Even the ACLU said some parts of the Patriot Act should stay in place. It's actually just some parts of the Patriot Act are that are threatening.

[beaconess]

82. Exactly

But another problem is that Ashcroft is overreaching his authority and abusing even some of the good parts.

[emulatorloo]

81. "Ending the Era of John Ashcroft" Kerry speech on Patriot Act

You really need to read this whole speech before you form your opinion of what John Kerry's position on the patriot act is. I would paste the whole thing in if I could, but please follow the link and read it. He does not think Bush's ideas are good; he thinks that they are the worst thing imaginable.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1201.html

Remarks by Senator John Kerry

December  01,  2003

Iowa State University

<snip>

A country where you are visited by the authorities for thinking or voicing an unpopular idea smacks more of the Taliban than Thomas Jefferson.  Trading in our basic rights for the false facade of security is not worth it – and it is not worthy of a great nation such as America.

We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night.  So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft.

That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time.  I’ve been a District Attorney and I know that what law enforcement needs are real tools not restrictions on American’s basic rights. 

Much of what is in Patriot Act are good ideas.  The Act increased penalties for terrorists, limited the statute of limitations for terrorist crimes, and allowed for greater prosecution of overseas acts against America.  I fought to include important money laundering restrictions to clamp down on the cash flowing to terrorist enterprises.  I had been pushing for these ideas since the late nineties – and after September 11th they were more important than ever.

<snip>

Edit: messed up title