It depresses the absolute hell out of me that the most fervent fighter against the Patriot Act

[cali]

Rand Paul.

He said this:

"Do we fear terrorism so much that we will not have debate," asked Sen. Paul. "Do we fear terrorism so much that we throw out our Constitution, and are we unwilling and afraid to debate our Constitution?"
http://www.npr.org/2011/05/27/136704247/renewing-the-patriot-act-came-down-to-the-wire

The Patriot Act is obscene and hugely dangerous and dems that should be standing up against it, support it.

And that most certainly includes my Senator, Pat Leahy.

[kentuck]

1. I fear we have gone too long ...

and the politicians now feel comfortable with our citizens under the yoke.

[tularetom]

2. What's worse is that we feel comfortable being there

Now that our politicians know how far we can be pushed without fighting back they will push a little further.

Our liberties will disappear incrementally.

[kentuck]

3. Yep.

:-(

[Obamanaut]

4. And they know that the vast majority of them will be reelected by the

citzenry that votes, in large part, for "the name you know."

So they don't care if the citzenry is upset from time to time. They are secure in their positions.

[hobbit709]

15. So died the Roman Republic.

[bob4460]

5. I feel we need a anyone but the incumbent vote country wide N/T

[Jackpine Radical]

108. Great idea! It worked wonders in Wisconsin.

[Enthusiast]

148. Many Democrats are a grave disappointment to us.

I admit that. But replacing them with more of these ignorant, greedy, right wing Ayn Rand Republicans like Kasich and Scott is hardly a solution. Anyone that votes for a fucking Republican needs their heads examined. If there is anything we now know for certain it is to NEVER, under any circumstances, vote for a Republican.

[Fumesucker]

6. The security state is like python or boa constrictor, every time the prey exhales it tightens a bit.

Eventually the prey suffocates because it is unable to inhale.

[PurityOfEssence]

62. So true

That's the best thing I've read in days. It's like crucifixion: you have to pull your body up so you can breathe, but eventually you can't.

Our party has lost its soul.

[russspeakeasy]

132. and its heart.

[DCBob]

7. Does it also bother you that you are agreeing with a kook like Rand Paul?

[Fumesucker]

8. The PATRIOT act was universally unpopular on DU..

Until Obama took office..

For some strange reason some opinions on the PA changed at that point.

[DCBob]

10. because "unversally" noboby trusted that asshole in the WH back then.

[Fumesucker]

11. So, your contention is that the law was bad when Bushie was in office?

But the very same law is now good because we have a Democratic POTUS?

Are you absolutely positive that there will never be another Republican in the Oval Office?

[DCBob]

13. Implementation...

Many didnt trust the Bush admin, and rightly so, on how they would implement the law.

[Fumesucker]

20. I wish I was as utterly certain as you that we will never have another Republican POTUS..

It must be nice to have that kind of ability to predict the future.

When Nixon resigned I expected that we wouldn't have another Republican POTUS for a generation or more, you might recall that Ronaldus Maximus swept into power after only four years of Jimmy Carter.

[DCBob]

46. This was a four year extension.

Unless something crazy happens Obama will be President during that time.

[Tesha]

77. And in four years there'll be another extension. And another. And another.

Just like the Hyde Amendment.

It's a shame our side never actually stands up
for our principles and says "This far and no
further."

Tesha

[pezDispenser]

151. right on brother

[tblue37]

155. So you don't mind having your civil liberties bulldozed as long as a Dem is in

the WH? I don't care who is in the WH--the Patriot Act is unconstitutional and dangerous as hell!

[TheKentuckian]

24. No one is trustworthy enough to implement such a law and if by chance there is such a person

The person that replaces them or the one after that absolutely won't be.

I don't get how a law that gave Bush too much power, or would give Romney, McCain, Christie, or Rick Perry to much power can be viewed as tolerable because a Democrat is office because even if you are correct in this instance does not mean you will continue to be correct with subsequent administration still implementing the law.
The law that you can go along with now will only become standard going forward to be abuse by the next Bush/Cheney types to come down the line and they will have such authority as a starting place
Personally, I don't trust flesh and blood with such power and couldn't give a damn what party is in office. Especially a country that folks like Reagan, Bush, McCain, and even Palin have a puncher's chance every four years and sometime make it into office in the era of the dysfunctional Congress.

You trust Barack Obama, Holder, and the rest with such authority and I don't but since neither of us trusts say Boehner (third in line) with such powers then the only sane call is not to give the government the power and the precedent. I don't get what is not simple about this, administrations are very temporary but laws like this are hard to repeal and get harder to repeal with each day they are on the books and are easy to expand on.

Your first loyalty must be the people, then the law, people and parties don't mean much.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

43. +1

[DCBob]

47. Well to me it is all about trust.

if you dont trust Democrats and the President you are in the wrong party.

[Wind Dancer]

58. Do you have complete trust in ALL Democrats?

Shakes head in total disbelief!!!

I fear anybody that has such blind allegiance to ANY politician. It's that "you're either with me or with the _________ (fill in blank)" mentality. Scary.

:shrug:

[DCBob]

59. Not all but most.. and in comparison to the alternative they are all saints..

I will never forget 2000-2008.

[TheKentuckian]

63. Bob, God may well be a Democrat but he/she won't be running.

I trust no flesh and blood with such power but even if I did there isn't a Republican breathing I trust with this power and that is enough to say no way.

You are missing my stance, I do believe.

[DCBob]

65. You do realize this is just a 4 year extension...

And even if they kill it now.. a Rethug congress and Rethug POTUS could revive it down the road.

[Pholus]

76. But then it would be them, not us. Besides, what is the "secret" interpretation we're hearing about

[Luminous Animal]

68. Your trust is misplaced.

"two Democratic senators, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Mark Udall of Colorado, have accused the Obama administration of using Section 215 for purposes not intended by Congress. Russ Feingold, then a Democratic senator for Wisconsin, raised similar alarms in 2009.

The senators know what the White House is up to because they were privy to secret testimony. But under Senate rules, they can't reveal what they learned. Thus they have demanded that the White House come clean with the public. "Americans would be alarmed if they knew how this law is being carried out," Udall is quoted as saying."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/may/27/patriot-act-civil-liberties

[DCBob]

69. Well you can decide who you want to trust, I will decide who I want to trust.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PufPuf23]

130. If one trusts politicians in general, one has their head

where the sun doesn't shine.

I voted primary and general for POTUS Obama and expect to vote less hope than 2008 for POTUS Obama in 2012.

I have been a member of the Democratic Party longer than Obama or Holder.

Holder is not worthy to be Attorney General by prior record, acts in office

The neo-liberals have co-opted the Democratic Party and the USA will not get back on track until the neo-liberals and neo-conservatives are extinct and the Patriot Act is repealed in its entirety.

POTUS Obama lost my trust by actions not matching words and by most of the appointments and many policies enacted during his administration.

I still find POTUS Obama articulate and charming but expected better results ands actions matching words.

Maybe you are in the wrong party? Grand theft Party?

Bernie Sanders is too Democratic for the Democratic Party.

[tblue37]

158. That may be the silliest comment I have ever read on DU! nt

[X_Digger]

56. Fucking A! n/t

[Enthusiast]

149. PLUS ONE! I agree....nt

[tomg]

152. Great comments. Spot on. nt

[Bragi]

29. Ah yes, I remember it well

There were many people here saying that the principles of the PA are just fine, but what is worrisome is how it will be implemented.

Oh wait, that's not at all what I remember. People at DU opposed the PA because it's provisions constituted a full scale attack on and repudiation of traditional civil liberties.

Hmmm, I wonder what made them change their minds on this?

[timtom]

30. Spot on comment!!!

[QC]

35. Bush wasn't dreamy. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. +1 n/t

[Dreamer Tatum]

97. I'm just surprised that all those forced labor and reeducation camps

that Bush was supposed to toss us all in have internet access so all the DUers tossed in there under the Patriot Act can opine.

Remember that? How we were all going to get herded up?

[me b zola]

129. That was not the prevailing thought or main concern discussed here at the time

Almost to person, this entire board was extremely concerned with the erosion of our Constitutional rights. It was well articulated by many, and i really don't recall anyone not sharing the outrage and concern.

Re-writing history is really creepy.

[Dreamer Tatum]

146. No. FEMA had camps ready to go, elections were being cancelled, blah blah blah

turns out not jack shit happened.

[JonLP24]

81. Even if you think

Obama will do the right thing when it comes to this law, Dems aren't going to hold the executive branch forever. What then when a Republican takes office? That is why it is important to remove these kind of powers because it opens up all sorts of abuses.

[DCBob]

91. Even if they remove it now a Repub congress and Repub WH can simply reinstate it...

in the future.

[JonLP24]

94. That's weak

Might as well not bother undoing any of the Bush damage because a Repub WH & Congress can simply reinstate it

[DCBob]

95. Thats even weaker.. Im not saying that a good reason.. just responding to your comment.

Do you even remember what you wrote just a few minutes ago?

[JonLP24]

Yes

So I support removal of it no matter what happens in the future as far as reinstating it. One of the reasons is giving the government too much power to spy with little oversight. Since you trust Obama not to abuse this power, you're not concerned about what Republicans can do with this power because they can simply reinstate it is what I called weak.

[DCBob]

103. Passing this bill now has nothing to do with what the Rethugs could do down the road..

I suspect they will try to make it even stronger if they ever get total control back.

[formernaderite]

111. and silly me who keeps reading how they're expanding

the uses for the Patriot act.

[Webster Green]

117. Obama is just as scary as junior was.

Possibly worse.

He has no problem with harassing anti-war groups, groping air travelers, and keeping everything he is doing top secret. They are probably tapping every phone line and internet connection in the country.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

74. Don't you get it, Fumesucker

The things that were bad when Bush did them automatically become good when Obama does them--or so some DUers seem to believe.

[KoKo]

99. Yes...we are told that the "Patriot Act is Good" because a Dem President urged Congress

to support it! Repugs=BAD!...Dems=Good!

All is GOOD NOW...because we have a Democratic President. Everything is Good because we are Democrats and we Elected Him.

:eyes:

[customerserviceguy]

19. In my lurking over at freeperville

I recall many of them being upset by the PA, they said that they would never be able to trust a Clinton, or Janet Reno with it.

The PA is just the 21st Century version of the Alien and Sedition Act.

[Fumesucker]

21. Yep, it's really funny how some people seem unable to look a few years down the road..

[obxhead]

26. So now that Obama is the man the exact same law

is ok.

So, your opinion on law and politics is determined squarely by the current President, not what the actual laws say and do.

[DCBob]

48. Laws like this can be interpreted and implemented in vastly different ways..

depending on who's interpreting and implenting them. There is some risk of course with a law like this but there is also risk without a law like this.

[Webster Green]

119. Life is fucking risky.

The so-called Patriot Act does nothing to protect anyone from anything.

I'm not afraid of terrorists. I'm afraid of the Patriot Act.

[CarmanK]

141. Obama and democrats have to pick their battles!!

Obama is already in charge of the implementation of this law. He stopped the torture and he is slowing the use and abuse of the law. He just saw that this bill, unlike so many with the Republican controlled house was actually going to pass without much fanfare. If he had taken on the Congress now, it would have distracted the people from the real cause of our nation's problems: the republican party/tbagger extremism. The repugs took a vote to KILL MEDICARE/vouchering the program for future recipients. They are on the defensive, for the first time in 2 and 1/2 years and the people are listening. He has to let the repugs hang themselves. Changing the Patriot Act would have been a distraction and now is not the time to let the repugs off the hook on anything they are doing.

[JoeyT]

153. Well, he SAYS he stopped the use of torture.

But since he's decided everything up to and including the bowel movement schedule of their pet dog is classified information vital to the national security of the country and has proven he's perfectly willing to annihilate whistleblowers, especially if they leak anything embarassing, we're just supposed to take him at his word.

It's good to know some people consider the Bill of Rights a "distraction" when compared to the really important stuff. Apparently the only important thing is making sure Republicans look bad, doesn't matter if we drag ourselves down so far there's no difference.

[lumberjack_jeff]

39. The belief that totalitarianism is okay when our guy is holding the reins is stupid. n/t

[DCBob]

49. I dont consider is totalitarianism and thanks for the insult.

:thumbsdown:

[Joe the Revelator]

131. No no no no no NO

That's not it at all! It's bad law.

[tblue37]

154. Don't you think that losing our civil liberties is inherently bad? And anyway, what makes

you think we won't have soemone as bad as W--or even worse--in the WH someday to abuse us even more?

I don't care WHO the president is--I detest the unconstitutional Patriot Act! And I will NOT oppose a sensible idea just because I despise the idiot who expressed it. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Pat Buchanan was against the Iraq invasion and actively criticized W, insisting that he was a disaster as president. By your reckoning, that would mean we have to approve of W and his illegal war because a Republican thug disapproved.

[w4rma]

9. Paul is absolutely correct on this issue. This is the issue that got him elected. (nt)

[DCBob]

12. Is he also "absolutely correct" about this?

"Senator Rand Paul, R-Ky., unveiled today his five-year path to a balanced budget, leaving several federal agencies behind. Among the items on the cutting room floor are the Departments of Education, Energy, Commerce and Housing and Urban Development."

[hobbit709]

18. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

I wouldn't agree with 99.99% of what Rand Paul says but on that issue I do.
Just like I DON'T agree 100% with everything Obama wants.

[Eddie Haskell]

34. You'd make a poor politician.

:-)

[truebrit71]

55. No, and there isn't a person on the planet with whom I agree 100%

He is absolutely spot-on with this issue though. He may very well be all tea-and-bsicuits about everything else, but on THIS ISSUE he is 100% right...

[DCBob]

107. But many here on DU are ready to throw Obama under the bus for not being 100%..

Why is that??

[tekisui]

133. Can you really not understand support when right and criticize when wrong?

It isn't that hard of a concept.

[DCBob]

145. Many here dont just criticize, they have given up and think Obama is hopeless.

and just endlessly bash him. How about that concept?

[former9thward]

96. Good try at deflection.

[cali]

16. well duh. try reading the frickin' title line.

[DCBob]

50. Depends what you are depressed about...

My point is that maybe you should rethink your opinion since the wackiest person in congress agrees with you.

[cali]

53. no. that's an absurd way to "think"

wacky, distasteful people agree with me on all kinds of issues. One should NEVER EVER FUCKING EVER base one's stance on issues on that. And btw, Bernie also agrees with me. but that in itself isn't a good reason for my position either. It's based on facts and information. Got a problem with making decisions based on information and facts?

[DCBob]

54. Thats fine.. just something to keep in mind..

it might be a clue to a flaw in your thinking process.

[pecwae]

66. The OP's thinking

process isn't the one containing a flaw.

[coalition_unwilling]

67. I'll bet you were all down with Operation Shocking and Awful also, because

Hilary and Kerry voted for it.

N.B. Ron Paul oppposed the IWR, unlike many notable Dems.

[DCBob]

86. Wrong... I fervently opposed the Iraq war and still do. I joined 3 of biggest protests here in DC..

during the early 2000's. That war is/was/will always be wrong. Although I understand why it is so difficult to get out of there once the idiot Bush imbedded us there.

[coalition_unwilling]

122. I stand corrected and I heartily and humbly apologize. But surely

you see that on the Iraq War, you aligned yourself with the position of Paul Pere et Fils in opposition to the leading lights of the Democratic Party, like Gebhardt, Hilary and John Kerry? So I think in that context you can appreciate Cali's bewilderment and frustration that, just as with the IWR, so with the PA we find ourselves aligned with the strangest of bedfellows in opposing an absolute execration to liberty.

Cali, I apologize if I am putting words in your mouth unduly here :). Please feel free to weigh in if I am not stating your position and feelings accurately.

[rpannier]

84. Some people

choose to be cult of personality

choose to read what was said and decide on the merits of the argument

I choose to look at the merits of the argument
Rand Paul is wrong most of the time.
On the Patriot Act he is correct

[DCBob]

89. Well if this is your most important issue then Paul is your man..

good luck with his other wacko extreme positions.

[rpannier]

121. The issue is not Rand Paul

The issue is the Patriot Act

and no amount of spinning by yourself is going to change that fact

[Muskypundit]

126. Do you work for the NSA by chance?

[eridani]

102. No, you should never under any circumstances rethink your opinion because someone crazy--

--agrees with you. Your values, facts and logic matter--nothing else does. Paul's opposition may be rooted in different values from mine, but the facts and logic stay the same.

[JonLP24]

105. and how many Republicans agree with you

on this issue?

[DCBob]

106. Alot of folks on both sides have agreed this is the right thing to do now.

A few disagree.. including some kooks like Rand Paul.

[JonLP24]

109. A

kook such as Sessions agree. Maybe you should rethink your position if a kook such as pro-torture Sessions agrees with this? (See where I'm going with your logic?)

[DCBob]

110. but I have fewer kooks on my side than you have on your side.

;)

[JonLP24]

115. I'm not sure about that

You got the likes of Ghraham, Kyl, Cochran and others. I haven't seen a roll call of the house but I'm sure there are a number of crazy Republicans such as Bachmann support this. Plus 122 House Democrats voted against it while 31 Republicans voted against it. I'm confident you have more crazies on your side.

[tblue37]

157. WTF is "right" about the f***ing Patriot Act? nt

[MedicalAdmin]

31. Nope. Because I, like many, evaluate policy rather than popularity.

Some seem to liken politics to a popularity contest.

The patriot act sucks ass and somdoes anyone who supports it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

38. Yes. Because the very serious people are all wrong.

When people have to be crazy to do the right thing, you know you're in trouble.

[Lucian]

57. Does it bother you that I support people's rights and freedoms?

Because it seems like it does bother you.

I will forever be against the Patriot Act, regardless of who's in office.

[hulka38]

61. Do you have the ability to form an opinion on an anonymous quote

or do you need to know who the author is first?

[AtheistCrusader]

72. How about a 'kook' like Dennis Kucinich?

Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Dennis Kucinich are all in lock-step on this issue.

[DCBob]

92. Yeah, that's an interesting trio.

[bread_and_roses]

87. What does Rand Paul the person have to do with the nature of the PA?

The PA is as much an abomination today as it was under Bush. Whether or not Rand Paul thinks so too is absolutely irrelevant to the principles at stake. Nor does the D or R after anyone's name change anything about the PA.

[TheEuclideanOne]

90. Ummmm.... I think that is the whole point of this thread.

If all of the Democratic Champions (and I use that term loosely) were fighting against it, we would not be having this discussion. It is like living in bizarro world. It also makes us look as hypocritical as Republicans to rally against it only when a Republican president is in the seat.

[former9thward]

93. Does it bother you that you agree with the kooks who support an unconstitutional law?

[emilyg]

120. I often agree with him. Doesn't

bother me.

[krabigirl]

139. Nope.

[2banon]

143. even a broken clock is accurate twice a day

On this matter he's absolutely accurate.

Rand Paul likes to think of himself as a Conservative Libertarian, except he is also a shill for Korporations so he's worse than a conservative libertarian. But most of our Congress Critters in both parties are shills for Korporations.

There are a few exceptions. Unfortunately too few.

[era veteran]

150. Bob, The law is unconstitutional

Rand Paul and I probably like pie too. Fuck the Patriot Act.

[DemReadingDU]

14. Most people really don't pay attention

They feel that whatever the government does, is for our protection, and is done in our best interests.

Most people don't understand the government is slowly eroding eroding away our constitutional and civil rights.

Many of my family live in Indiana, and they have no clue what their Supreme Court just ruled on.

[steve2470]

17. + 1000 nt

[leveymg]

22. What disturbs me is that Leahy, and some others, know better, yet supported this Bill

The Democrats in the Senate have been an enormous disappointment. The Republican are of course far, far worse, but that doesn't excuse universal, warrantless wiretapping and net surveillance.

Hypocrites.

[cali]

52. yeah, it disturbs and saddens me immensely.

Pat Leahy, in many ways, for many years, has been a champion of civil liberties. For me, his support of the Patriot Act at this juncture, negates a good deal of that.

[eridani]

104. Indeed. they are afraid of fear itself n/t

[Modern_Matthew]

23. I will not be voting for any Democrat that supports the Patriot Act...

Fuck 'em.

[Hubert Flottz]

25. Just wait till pResident Palin gets to run things and spy on...

everyone.

[dreamnightwind]

27. Yes! And my Dem senators voted for it too

Boxer (aaarrrgh!!) and Feinstein both voted Yeah. It burns.

Check out this thread
There’s a Secret Patriot Act, Senator Says
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1173686

Sen. Wyden is concerned that the actual interpretation the gov is using of the Patriot Act is a really radical one, with the gov hugely overstepping its bounds. He won't get specific, says he can't talk about it. What we know about is bad enough, sounds like it's worse though. Apparently Reid and Feinstein successfully pressured Wyden (and Udall) to withdraw an amendment that sought to declassify soAnyway he thinks we all need to know what they're doing with it, or at least how they've interpreted the law.e info on what they're doing, or at least on their interpretation of the law, presuAnyway he thinks we all need to know what they're doing with it, or at least how they've interpreted the law.ably as it relates to data collection. Discussed by Marcy Wheeler here: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/05/26/the-un-patriot-acts-of-harry-reid/

[bread_and_roses]

116. And why, in a democracy, cannot an elected Representative talk about implementation of a law?

That in and of itself speaks volumes. What happened to "transparency," eh? Just another campaign word I guess.

[Eddie Haskell]

28. Since 2001 there's been one US death due to terrorism

In contrast, we average 433,000 deaths/yr due to smoking.

http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/aag/osh.htm

We're losing our rights to a myth.

[sabrina 1]

82. 44,000 deaths due to lack of Healthcare. That is a serious

threat to national security. This whole WOT just like the War on Drugs, is just a way to control the population and funnel vast amounts of money into the hands of the wealthy.

[ThomWV]

32. Its trite to say it, "but even a broken clock ..."

It is a fact so obvious that even Rand Paul gets it. And for all it lunacy, now and then, just like a broken clock, he gets it right.

[Bragi]

33. Libertarians and progressives often agree

I note that several posters here think it surprising that Ran Paul opposes the PA.

Well, it may come as a shock to many here, but the fact is that traditional liberals and libertarian conservatives (like Paul) often are in agreement on protecting individual freedoms and civil liberties.

Perhaps even more shocking is that progressives and libertarian conservatives often agree about opposing foreign wars.

[meow mix]

36. k&r

[GeorgeGist]

37. What were you expecting?

Home of the brave?

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. Right wing or not, Paul is a Libertarian

It is consistent with his professed beliefs to take the position that he did on this. I would have been pleased if a lot more Democrats had been fighting as hard as Paul on this issue. It doesn't bother me that Paul was one of the strong voices against the Partriot Act extension, just that he sticks out like a sore thumb for taking such a strong stand against it.

[eilen]

78. It sucks that our Democrats don't stick to their principles

about this. Unless, of course, they agree with the Patriot Act which then calls to question would they have impeached Nixon in his day?

[Aerows]

41. This is one issue

Where Ron and Rand are absolutely, positively right.

I'd bet if you asked most Americans, they abhor the "Patriot" Act. It benefits the wealthiest, and those interested in monitoring everything a human being does, though, so that's where we are. We are becoming a society more interested in monitoring life than we are in living it.

[MannyGoldstein]

42. The world seems to get weirder by the day!

As Hunter Thompson said... "W\when the going gets weird, the weird turn pro"

[rpannier]

85. Go here

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/259306/veto-challenge-postponed?SESSe08d273418edb1b1240d6b370e17bdb9=facebook&CSAuthResp=%3Asession%3ACSUserId%7CCSGroupId%3Aapproved%3ABA4A9537C4BF4594E11F4B09D8217743&CSUserId=94&CSGroupId=1

When it became clear yesterday that O'Brien would not call the vote, Rep. Tony Soltani, a Republican from Epsom, challenged him to do so. Soltani, who opposes right-to-work, said it was unfair to postpone the vote after the governor's veto message was listed in the House calendar.



A Republican who opposes right-to-work

[Dawson Leery]

44. On this matter, he is right and Harry Reid is WRONG.

[slay]

51. Bernie Sanders voted NO on both the 4 year extension and the 3 month extension

as did Sharod Brown and i think Max Baucus - maybe a few others. But I hear ya - Rand Paul was indeed the most vocal in his opposition against it. :(

[hulka38]

60. That is the absolute perfect way to phrase this latest failure

of principle of our party. Thank you.

[treestar]

64. Libertarians agree with us on half and with the Republicans on half

It's no surprise - but he would also be for guns, no economic regulation, etc.

They agree with conservatives on "economic liberty."

[The Green Manalishi]

73. And against the War On Drugs.

[AtheistCrusader]

98. And for civil rights.

[kentuck]

70. Why did they hold the vote at the last minute??

So there could be no debate?

[KoKo]

100. Hey...it's Congress... They make their own rules and they are separate from President but Equal.

[jakeXT]

71. You want debate and questions and stuff?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x315960#315969

[KoKo]

101. That's really strange that the post was put in the "9/11 Dungeon."

I really wonder what the rationale was about that. :shrug:

[mmonk]

75. Everything is different now you know since the presidency changed hands.

Nobody except those unreasonable crazies on the "left" in the Democratic Party's ranks support Constitutional rights along with the Libertarians. They just don't understand we need to appeal those conservative districts. It's just a piece of paper.

[newspeak]

79. please, they were salivating to pass the piece of shite

after the OKC incident. The reason it didn't pass, is because it was a democratic president. I prayed it wouldn't pass at that time. Little Boots comes in with a repug majority and everything is just fine. They've been wanting this draconian step for quite a while now. I love my new overlords--"all hail (fill in blank)."

[Corruption Winz]

80. Ridiculous... Completely unjustifiable..

Democrats should be ashamed of themselves.

[DeSwiss]

83. There is no debate in a POLICE STATE. - K&R

"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where
the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery..." ~Frank Zappa

[russspeakeasy]

135. DeSwiss...you nailed it. Thanks.

[Stalwart]

88. Trust in the Secret Interpretation

To me it appears that what is being done is wrong by public law interpretation. It is right by official secret interpretation and there is a serious difference. If the secret interpretation was known it would expose the reason for a secret interpretation.


Government officials that do something they know is wrong by law certainly need some ironclad assurance that it is the right thing to do and they will be protected if they do it. That, I think, is the reason for an official secret government interpretation. A get out of jail free card if it all hits the fan. If what is being done secretly and sanctioned by secret interpretation becomes public everyone is exonerated after some agonizing scrutiny. They are probably very sure that the public would approve if everything was known.

Prior secret amassing of all communication information is crucial when the time comes to find needles in haystacks and identify networks after some deed is done and the people are known.

Right or wrong to collect all information or at least have open access to collected information?

What if nobody ever looks at all the info collected by business and government until the need arises and then that need is sanctioned by official policy and court confirmation to protect the rights of citizens in accordance with the Constitution. Amassing the information and having systems to analyze it is therefore not wrong? Analyzing the information is not wrong if it is anonymized? What is permissible when that analysis points to an individual. Can that person then be identified by lifting privacy controls and questioned based on probable cause that came from a mass search of records? Is that any violation of our freedoms?

If that is the way we interpret the application of our freedoms then it must be public. Subject to public debate and decision. It cannot be done in secret or by secret interpretation of the public law. That is wrong.

The issue here is are we going to have secret government interpretations of public law to allow government to do what it needs to do in our best interest or are we going to make public decisions about our freedoms.

[radhika]

112. A case of IOKIYAD? Or worse...

It's OK if you're a Democrat?

Might just be a case of denial - a blind sense that 'OUR' side can't possibly be as bad as 'THEIR' side. We can let the law stand, because we'd never use it. It's just there to blunt right wing criticism - so they can't say Dems are soft on terror.

But the truth is every year we are more and more innoculated. The years of relatively free passage onto planes and trains is dimming. We sort of realize that all our electronic communications are tracked or trackable. More police raids; citizens tazed. Court rulings that legitimize all of the proceeding. And the Big Telcos and thug groups that do the warrantless surveillance continue to be rewarded with favorable legislation and fat government contracts.

At this point, I'm afraid I'm looking to people in other countries to light the spark of freedom. Middle East and Europe, parts of South America. We are not at the leading edge of freedom.

[ProSense]

113. Wait

Rand Paul co-sponsored Leahy's amendment.

[bertman]

114. I agree with you 100%, Cali. REC. nt

[ZombieHorde]

118. Recommended. nt

[ProSense]

124. Most Democrats want to fix, not repeal the Patriot Act.

Most Democrats want to fix, not repeal the Patriot Act.

[Muskypundit]

127. No. There is no fixing evil.

The principles behind the Orwell act are beyond the pale. Whatever you change to the bill will not change its principles. It must go. It must die. I could care less if everyone in the world thought the patriot act was just misunderstood and needed a little more make-up. Its evil. There is no other way to word it.

[ProSense]

128. "Its evil."

So are Leahy an Paul "evil" for attempting to fix it? Was Feingold "evil"?

[Muskypundit]

137. I dont care whatever names you pull out of your.... hat

They are just people. You can agree with them 99% of the time and disagree one. Or the other way around. It doesnt matter, because I dont follow people so they can tell me what is right and how to think. I follow information and deduce what I can from that, Just like most of the people on this site.

With that being said, there is no way in hell it would ever be repealed. It would have to be amended. And amending it is the right step towards abolishing it. It should be abolished.

[ProSense]

140. Huh?

"It doesnt matter, because I dont follow people so they can tell me what is right and how to think. I follow information and deduce what I can from that, Just like most of the people on this site."

Who was telling you what to think?

"With that being said, there is no way in hell it would ever be repealed. It would have to be amended. And amending it is the right step towards abolishing it. It should be abolished."

Ah, the old "amend the 'evil' bill to abolish it" trick.

:rofl:

[2banon]

144. yes, we know. They want to work better than it did for Bush/Cheney

Apparently, the bill wasn't quite fascist enough for these folks.

[unkachuck]

125. K&R....it's a crazy, mixed-up world we live in....n/t

[PotatoChip]

134. Well, if it's any consolation, your neighboring state of Maine stood up against it....

-At a time when it was FAR more politically perilous to do so then now- These various brave State House Reps and State Senators went ahead anyway, and passed it in both Chambers. *Sadly, there are a lot of missing Dems in this list (even some from 'safe' seats). If I remember correctly, it narrowly passed in the Senate and was signed by then D Gov. Baldacci

March 23, 2004
State of Maine
House of Representatives
121st Legislature
Second Special Session

HOUSE ADVANCE JOURNAL AND CALENDAR

Friday, March 19, 2004

SUPPLEMENT NO. 1

ORDERS

(4-1) On motion of Representative HUTTON of Bowdoinham, the following Joint Resolution: (H.P. 1433) (Under suspension of the rules, cosponsored by Senator STRIMLING of Cumberland, President DAGGETT of Kennebec and Representatives: ADAMS of Portland, ASH of Belfast, BARSTOW of Gorham, BEAUDETTE of Biddeford, BLANCHETTE of Bangor, BLISS of South Portland, BRANNIGAN of Portland, BULL of Freeport, CANAVAN of Waterville, Speaker COL WELL of Gardiner, COWGER of Hallowell, CRAVEN of Lewiston, CUMMINGS of Portland, DUDLEY of Portland, DUNLAP of Old Town, DUIPLESSIE of Westbrook, DUPREY of Medway, EARLE of Damariscotta, EDER of Portland, FAIRCLOTH of Bangor, FISCHER of Presque Isle, GERZOFSKY of Brunswick, GOODWIN of Pembroke, GROSE of Woolwich, HATCH of Skowhegan, JACKSON of Fort Kent, JENNINGS of Leeds, KANE of Saco, KETTERER of Madison, KOFFMAN of Bar Harbor, LEMOINE of Old Orchard Beach, LERMAN of Augusta, LESSARD of Topsham, LORING of the Penobscot Nation, MAILHOT of Lewiston, MAKAS of Lewiston, MARLEY of Portland, McGLOCKLIN of Embden, McKEE of Wayne, McLAUGHLIN of Cape Elizabeth, MILLS of Farmington, NORBERT of Portland, NORTON of Bangor, O'BRIEN of Lewiston, O'NEIL of Saco, PARADIS of Frenchville, PATRICK of Rumford, PELLON of Machias, PERCY of Phippsburg, PERRY of Calais, PERRY of Bangor, PINEAU of Jay, PINGREE of North Haven, RICHARDSON of Brunswick, RINES of Wiscasset, SAMPSON of Auburn, SAVIELLO of Wilton, SIMPSON of Auburn, SMITH of Monmouth, SMITH of Van Buren, SULLIVAN of Biddeford, SUSLOVIC of Portland, THOMAS of Orono, TRAHAN of Waldoboro, TWOMEY of Biddeford, USHER of Westbrook, WALCOTT of Lewiston, WATSON of Bath, WHEELER of Kittery, WOTTON of Littleton, Senators: BRENNAN of Cumberland, BROMLEY of Cumberland, BRYANT of Oxford, CATHCART of Penobscot, DAMON of Hancock, DOUGLASS of Androscoggin, EDMONDS of Cumberland, GAGNON of Kennebec, HALL of Lincoln, HATCH of Somerset, MARTIN of Aroostook, MAYO of Sagadahoc, President Pro Tem TREAT of Kennebec) (Approved for introduction by a majority of the Legislative Council pursuant to Joint Rule 214)

JOINT RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES TO ENSURE THE PROTECTION OF CIVIL

LIBERTIES AND THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES

WE, your Memorialists, the Members of the One Hundred and Twenty-first Legislature of the State of Maine now assembled in the Second Special Session, most respectfully present and petition the President of the United States and the United States Congress, as follows:

WHEREAS, the State of Maine recognizes that the Constitution of the United States is our charter of liberty and that the Bill of Rights enshrines the fundamental and inalienable rights of Americans, including the freedoms of religion, speech, assembly and privacy; and

WHEREAS, each of Maine's duly elected public servants has sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Maine; and

WHEREAS, the State of Maine denounces and condemns all acts of terrorism, wherever occurring; and

WHEREAS, attacks against Americans such as those that occurred on September 11, 2001 have necessitated the crafting of effective laws to protect the public from terrorist attacks; and

WHEREAS, any new security measures of federal, state and local governments should be carefully designed and employed to enhance public safety without infringing on the civil liberties and rights of any citizen of the State of Maine and the nation; and

WHEREAS, matters relating to immigration are primarily federal in nature; and

WHEREAS, certain provisions of the ""Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001,"" commonly referred to as the USA PATRIOT Act, allow the Federal Government more liberally to detain and investigate citizens and engage in surveillance activities that may violate or offend the rights and liberties guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED: That We, your Memorialists, on behalf of the people we represent, take this opportunity to inform the President of the United States and the United States Congress that the Maine State Legislature supports the government of the United States of America in its campaign against terrorism and affirms its commitment that the campaign not be waged at the expense of essential civil rights and liberties of citizens of this country contained in the Constitution of United States and the Bill of Rights; and be it further

RESOLVED: That We, the Members of the Maine State Legislature reaffirm our sworn oaths to defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Maine and our solemn commitment to continue to protect and champion the rights and liberties of Maine citizens that are guaranteed under the state and federal constitutions, including freedom of expression; the right to free access to public information; freedom of association, including the ability to attend meetings without being monitored or belong to an organization without fear of reprisal; freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, including wiretapping and monitoring of medical records and library records; due process protections, including protection against detention without charges or targeting based on race, religion, ethnicity or national origin; and the right to property, including protection against seizure or freezing of assets; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Maine State Legislature urges the Federal Government to continue to exercise its jurisdiction over immigration matters and encourages the Federal Government to work cooperatively with the states to provide assistance and training necessary to protect our country; and be it further

RESOLVED: That laws passed by the United States Congress to specifically combat the threat of international terrorism should not be used in conducting domestic law enforcement; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Maine State Legislature implores the United States Congress to review provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act and other measures that may infringe on civil liberties and ensure any pending and future federal measures do not infringe on Americans' civil rights and liberties; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Legislature calls upon our United States Representatives and Senators to monitor the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act and related federal actions and, if necessary, repeal those sections of the USA PATRIOT Act and related federal measures that may infringe upon fundamental rights and liberties as recognized in the United States Constitution and its amendments; and be it further

RESOLVED: That official copies of this resolution, duly authenticated by the Secretary of State, be transmitted to the Honorable George W. Bush, President of the United States; the Honorable John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States; the Honorable John E. Baldacci, Governor of the State of Maine; Richard Cheney, President of the United States Senate; Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives; and each member of the Maine Congressional Delegation.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/state-maine-resolution

[2banon]

136. Senator Feinstein and Boxer here.. Feingold was our Sole Opponent of the PA in the Senate

I miss his courage, his integrity, his intellectual honesty, his acument, and his Progressive aspirations.

I was devasted when he lost his seat. But it was also devastating to watch him with such courage, and righteousness be rediculed by the media et al. I really do miss Feingold even though he wasn't my Senator.

[lordsummerisle]

142. Exactly how I felt n/t

[krabigirl]

138. Libertarians usually come out in support of civil liberties. Not always but often.

[Vinee]

147. K&R

[ProfessorGAC]

156. I Think Inertia Has Taken Over

The stupid thing has been in place for going on a decade. The howling over it is a mere memory.

The fact that it's inherently dangerous and essentially useless no longer matters. It's now been in place long enough that it will stay due to its own inertia.

GAC