TEA Party derails PATRIOT Act fasttrack vote

[Liability]

Abusing the Patriot Act

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/world/americas/09iht-fbi.4863162.html

Controversial invocations of the USA PATRIOT Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On June 15, 2007, following an internal audit finding that FBI agents abused the USA PATRIOT Act power more than 1000 times, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ordered the agency to begin turning over thousands of pages of documents related to the agency's national security letters program.[2]

(this was in 2007, use of the patriot act's new rules have increased wildly since then)

On June 15, 2007, following an internal audit finding that FBI agents abused the USA PATRIOT Act power more than 1000 times, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ordered the agency to begin turning over thousands of pages of documents related to the agency's national security letters program.[2]

In September 2003, the New York Times reported on a case of the USA PATRIOT Act being used to investigate alleged potential drug traffickers without probable cause. The article also mentions a study by Congress that referenced hundreds of cases where the USA PATRIOT Act was used to investigate non-terrorist alleged future crimes. The New York Times reports that these non-terrorist investigations are relevant because President Bush and several members of Congress stated that the purpose the USA PATRIOT Act was that of investigating and preempting potential terrorist acts. [12]

(like i said, being a terrorist or not isn't important)

In September 2003, the New York Times reported on a case of the USA PATRIOT Act being used to investigate alleged potential drug traffickers without probable cause. The article also mentions a study by Congress that referenced hundreds of cases where the USA PATRIOT Act was used to investigate non-terrorist alleged future crimes. The New York Times reports that these non-terrorist investigations are relevant because President Bush and several members of Congress stated that the purpose the USA PATRIOT Act was that of investigating and preempting potential terrorist acts. [12]

Public libraries have been asked to turn over their records for specific terminals. A few have filed suit, because the National Security Letters that they were presented with were very sweeping, demanding information not just on the individual under investigation, but on everyone who had used specific terminals at the libraries during given time windows. Since many of the users in one case were minor children, one library felt that it had an obligation to notify the parents. The FBI has disagreed and the case is now working its way through the court system.

(thank god I'm being taxed in order to pay for close monitoring of libraries)

In May 2004, Professor Steve Kurtz of the University at Buffalo reported his wife's death of heart failure. The associate art professor, who works in the biotechnology sector, was using benign bacterial cultures and biological equipment in his work. Police arriving at the scene found the equipment (which had been displayed in museums and galleries throughout Europe and North America) suspicious and notified the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The next day the FBI, Joint Terrorism Task Force, Department of Homeland Security and numerous other law enforcement agencies arrived in HAZMAT gear and cordoned off the block surrounding Kurtz's house, impounding computers, manuscripts, books, and equipment, and detaining Kurtz without charge for 22 hours; the Erie County Health Department condemned the house as a possible "health risk" while the cultures were analyzed. Although it was determined that nothing in the Kurtz's home posed any health or safety risk, the Justice Department sought charges under Section 175 of the US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act—a law which was expanded by the USA PATRIOT Act. A grand jury rejected those charges, but Kurtz is still charged with federal criminal mail and wire fraud, and faced 20 years in jail before the charges were dropped. Supporters worldwide argue that this is a politically motivated prosecution, akin to those seen during the era of McCarthyism, and legal observers note that it is a precedent-setting case with far-reaching implications involving the criminalization of free speech and expression for artists, scientists, researchers, and others. [14][15]

FBI agents used a USA PATRIOT Act "sneak and peek" search to secretly examine the home of Brandon Mayfield, who was wrongfully jailed for two weeks on suspicion of involvement in the Madrid train bombings. Agents seized three hard drives and ten DNA samples preserved on cotton swabs, and took 335 photos of personal items. Mayfield has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government, contending that his rights were violated by his arrest and by the investigation against him. He also contends the USA PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional. [16][17][18]

The FBI used the USA PATRIOT Act 13 times to request journalists that had interviewed computer intruder Adrian Lamo to preserve their notes and other information while they petitioned the Department of Justice for a subpoena to force the reporters to hand over the information. Journalists involved included newspaper writers, wire service reporters, and MSNBC writers. The Department of Justice did not authorize the subpoena requests because the language of the subpoena violated the Department's guidelines for a subpoena request, rather than recognition of any reporter/source privilege. The requests to preserve information were dropped. In some cases, the FBI apologized for the language of the request. [19][20]

(to hell with freedom of speech)

What is or is not related to the investigation of terrorist threats is not always easily identified.

In any event, figure something out for yourself. Ok. I'll give you a little assist, a hint as it were:

HOW did you come to know of that array of alleged abuses?

Is it 'Attack The Messenger' time already?!?

It seems to come earlier and earlier in Wingnut World.

If you weren't so fucking stupid, Simpleholic, even a dope like you might have grasped by now that there is no attack of the messenger going on. Christ on a Cracker, you are dopey.

Instead, dumbass, the question was literal. As I have spelled out already, the question is asked to highlight the fact that the Slimes did not ferret out the information in some classic "unnamed source" intrigue. It's all a public fucking record, you simpleton.

And that fact is important because it confirms that the law was written with an eye toward checks and balances which are working.

You are, the wingnut, you tool.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I find this worrisome, Quantum Windbag. I am not sure why the provisions they voted down were not approved. If it is some free-floating "anti-Big Government" attitude, I will feel less safe if they proceed to strip away all the extraordinary powers of the Patriot Act.

But then you knew I wouldn't approve, didn't you?

This happens every single time.

There are provisions of the PATRIOT Act that everyone claims to hate, yet they never really debate them. They keep putting off the debate, and then passing the whole bill off as an emergency measure. How many emergencies last 10 years?

I can live with dismantling the DHS, Quantum Windbag. It's the investigative tools the Act contains that I am worried about losing. Are you gonna say, with all seriousness, no such tool has aided in the prevention of any tragedy on US soil?

I am MORE afraid of terrorists than I am of governmental abuse.

Can I say that with 100% certainty? Not at all.

What I can say is we do not need libraries reporting on the books we read, or our ISPs keeping records of every site we look at. One thing I can gaurantee you is that your fear of terrorism is over blown. You are statistically more likely to die by being struck by lightning than you are of be killed by terrorism. Allowing the government to frighten you into giving them more power is the ultimate abuse, and just shows how badly they have twisted the debate to their benefit.

 

[Trajan]

obama wants provisions , the provisions here to fore seen as the most egregious ala civil rights renowned, hes said so many times. *shurgs* and it will happen.

 

[whitehall]

Congress is trying to rush things through without doing what we pay them to do. I seldom agree with democrats and I question their motivation in this case but I think the Patriot Act needs some scrutiny. Are we always going to get "Tea Party" association included with discussion about congressional voting?

 

[rightwinger]

Patriot Act was meant to be an emergency measure to provide temporary additional powers to the president in a time of crisis.

Its now been ten years. There is no justification to make thes powers permanant. End the histeria leading to giving up civil rights and repeal the thing

 

[BenNatuf]

So the Tea Party scuttled the Patriot Act?

That is so funny on so many levels, I'll be danged if I know where to begin...

It most definately is tea party politics that helped to defeat it inh this vote. Sad though, because the one thing nobody should be playing politics with is national security. The PA is a good tool and it should be kept in force so long as this war goes on.

Which war? Afghanistan, or the endless, so-called "War On Terror"®?

The war that is ongoing due to the AUMF the congress passed declaring it in 2001 against AQ and their affiliates, and any nations, states, organizations or persons who harbor, aid, abet or support them or their affiliates. What you fools fail to get is that the PA actually restricts what the President can do as before it passed he needed no warrant to gather intelligence against our enemies in the first place. He can do that under his authority as the CinC.

 

[BenNatuf]

So the Tea Party scuttled the Patriot Act?

That is so funny on so many levels, I'll be danged if I know where to begin...

It most definately is tea party politics that helped to defeat it inh this vote. Sad though, because the one thing nobody should be playing politics with is national security. The PA is a good tool and it should be kept in force so long as this war goes on.

It's not national security, it's false security. It's the sense of security . . . the feeling of security where none exists.

As long as people can walk across the Canadian and Mexican borders and shipping cargo is not secure, this is all just a very expensive, budget-busting illusion of security.

the idea that because our security is not perfect we shouldn't attempt any is kind of dumb.

 

[BenNatuf]

Abusing the Patriot Act

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/world/americas/09iht-fbi.4863162.html

Controversial invocations of the USA PATRIOT Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On June 15, 2007, following an internal audit finding that FBI agents abused the USA PATRIOT Act power more than 1000 times, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ordered the agency to begin turning over thousands of pages of documents related to the agency's national security letters program.[2]

(this was in 2007, use of the patriot act's new rules have increased wildly since then)

On June 15, 2007, following an internal audit finding that FBI agents abused the USA PATRIOT Act power more than 1000 times, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ordered the agency to begin turning over thousands of pages of documents related to the agency's national security letters program.[2]

In September 2003, the New York Times reported on a case of the USA PATRIOT Act being used to investigate alleged potential drug traffickers without probable cause. The article also mentions a study by Congress that referenced hundreds of cases where the USA PATRIOT Act was used to investigate non-terrorist alleged future crimes. The New York Times reports that these non-terrorist investigations are relevant because President Bush and several members of Congress stated that the purpose the USA PATRIOT Act was that of investigating and preempting potential terrorist acts. [12]

(like i said, being a terrorist or not isn't important)

In September 2003, the New York Times reported on a case of the USA PATRIOT Act being used to investigate alleged potential drug traffickers without probable cause. The article also mentions a study by Congress that referenced hundreds of cases where the USA PATRIOT Act was used to investigate non-terrorist alleged future crimes. The New York Times reports that these non-terrorist investigations are relevant because President Bush and several members of Congress stated that the purpose the USA PATRIOT Act was that of investigating and preempting potential terrorist acts. [12]

Public libraries have been asked to turn over their records for specific terminals. A few have filed suit, because the National Security Letters that they were presented with were very sweeping, demanding information not just on the individual under investigation, but on everyone who had used specific terminals at the libraries during given time windows. Since many of the users in one case were minor children, one library felt that it had an obligation to notify the parents. The FBI has disagreed and the case is now working its way through the court system.

(thank god I'm being taxed in order to pay for close monitoring of libraries)

In May 2004, Professor Steve Kurtz of the University at Buffalo reported his wife's death of heart failure. The associate art professor, who works in the biotechnology sector, was using benign bacterial cultures and biological equipment in his work. Police arriving at the scene found the equipment (which had been displayed in museums and galleries throughout Europe and North America) suspicious and notified the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The next day the FBI, Joint Terrorism Task Force, Department of Homeland Security and numerous other law enforcement agencies arrived in HAZMAT gear and cordoned off the block surrounding Kurtz's house, impounding computers, manuscripts, books, and equipment, and detaining Kurtz without charge for 22 hours; the Erie County Health Department condemned the house as a possible "health risk" while the cultures were analyzed. Although it was determined that nothing in the Kurtz's home posed any health or safety risk, the Justice Department sought charges under Section 175 of the US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act—a law which was expanded by the USA PATRIOT Act. A grand jury rejected those charges, but Kurtz is still charged with federal criminal mail and wire fraud, and faced 20 years in jail before the charges were dropped. Supporters worldwide argue that this is a politically motivated prosecution, akin to those seen during the era of McCarthyism, and legal observers note that it is a precedent-setting case with far-reaching implications involving the criminalization of free speech and expression for artists, scientists, researchers, and others. [14][15]

FBI agents used a USA PATRIOT Act "sneak and peek" search to secretly examine the home of Brandon Mayfield, who was wrongfully jailed for two weeks on suspicion of involvement in the Madrid train bombings. Agents seized three hard drives and ten DNA samples preserved on cotton swabs, and took 335 photos of personal items. Mayfield has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government, contending that his rights were violated by his arrest and by the investigation against him. He also contends the USA PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional. [16][17][18]

The FBI used the USA PATRIOT Act 13 times to request journalists that had interviewed computer intruder Adrian Lamo to preserve their notes and other information while they petitioned the Department of Justice for a subpoena to force the reporters to hand over the information. Journalists involved included newspaper writers, wire service reporters, and MSNBC writers. The Department of Justice did not authorize the subpoena requests because the language of the subpoena violated the Department's guidelines for a subpoena request, rather than recognition of any reporter/source privilege. The requests to preserve information were dropped. In some cases, the FBI apologized for the language of the request. [19][20]

(to hell with freedom of speech)

do you know why these are "abuses" of the PA? Generaly it would be because they are NOT ALLOWED under it. What you have displayed (completely by accident), is that the government FAILED to FOLLOW the law and you somehow have confused that with the law itself being an abuse.

 

[Liability]

Abusing the Patriot Act

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/world/americas/09iht-fbi.4863162.html

Controversial invocations of the USA PATRIOT Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On June 15, 2007, following an internal audit finding that FBI agents abused the USA PATRIOT Act power more than 1000 times, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ordered the agency to begin turning over thousands of pages of documents related to the agency's national security letters program.[2]

(this was in 2007, use of the patriot act's new rules have increased wildly since then)

On June 15, 2007, following an internal audit finding that FBI agents abused the USA PATRIOT Act power more than 1000 times, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ordered the agency to begin turning over thousands of pages of documents related to the agency's national security letters program.[2]

In September 2003, the New York Times reported on a case of the USA PATRIOT Act being used to investigate alleged potential drug traffickers without probable cause. The article also mentions a study by Congress that referenced hundreds of cases where the USA PATRIOT Act was used to investigate non-terrorist alleged future crimes. The New York Times reports that these non-terrorist investigations are relevant because President Bush and several members of Congress stated that the purpose the USA PATRIOT Act was that of investigating and preempting potential terrorist acts. [12]

(like i said, being a terrorist or not isn't important)

In September 2003, the New York Times reported on a case of the USA PATRIOT Act being used to investigate alleged potential drug traffickers without probable cause. The article also mentions a study by Congress that referenced hundreds of cases where the USA PATRIOT Act was used to investigate non-terrorist alleged future crimes. The New York Times reports that these non-terrorist investigations are relevant because President Bush and several members of Congress stated that the purpose the USA PATRIOT Act was that of investigating and preempting potential terrorist acts. [12]

Public libraries have been asked to turn over their records for specific terminals. A few have filed suit, because the National Security Letters that they were presented with were very sweeping, demanding information not just on the individual under investigation, but on everyone who had used specific terminals at the libraries during given time windows. Since many of the users in one case were minor children, one library felt that it had an obligation to notify the parents. The FBI has disagreed and the case is now working its way through the court system.

(thank god I'm being taxed in order to pay for close monitoring of libraries)

In May 2004, Professor Steve Kurtz of the University at Buffalo reported his wife's death of heart failure. The associate art professor, who works in the biotechnology sector, was using benign bacterial cultures and biological equipment in his work. Police arriving at the scene found the equipment (which had been displayed in museums and galleries throughout Europe and North America) suspicious and notified the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The next day the FBI, Joint Terrorism Task Force, Department of Homeland Security and numerous other law enforcement agencies arrived in HAZMAT gear and cordoned off the block surrounding Kurtz's house, impounding computers, manuscripts, books, and equipment, and detaining Kurtz without charge for 22 hours; the Erie County Health Department condemned the house as a possible "health risk" while the cultures were analyzed. Although it was determined that nothing in the Kurtz's home posed any health or safety risk, the Justice Department sought charges under Section 175 of the US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act—a law which was expanded by the USA PATRIOT Act. A grand jury rejected those charges, but Kurtz is still charged with federal criminal mail and wire fraud, and faced 20 years in jail before the charges were dropped. Supporters worldwide argue that this is a politically motivated prosecution, akin to those seen during the era of McCarthyism, and legal observers note that it is a precedent-setting case with far-reaching implications involving the criminalization of free speech and expression for artists, scientists, researchers, and others. [14][15]

FBI agents used a USA PATRIOT Act "sneak and peek" search to secretly examine the home of Brandon Mayfield, who was wrongfully jailed for two weeks on suspicion of involvement in the Madrid train bombings. Agents seized three hard drives and ten DNA samples preserved on cotton swabs, and took 335 photos of personal items. Mayfield has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government, contending that his rights were violated by his arrest and by the investigation against him. He also contends the USA PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional. [16][17][18]

The FBI used the USA PATRIOT Act 13 times to request journalists that had interviewed computer intruder Adrian Lamo to preserve their notes and other information while they petitioned the Department of Justice for a subpoena to force the reporters to hand over the information. Journalists involved included newspaper writers, wire service reporters, and MSNBC writers. The Department of Justice did not authorize the subpoena requests because the language of the subpoena violated the Department's guidelines for a subpoena request, rather than recognition of any reporter/source privilege. The requests to preserve information were dropped. In some cases, the FBI apologized for the language of the request. [19][20]

(to hell with freedom of speech)

do you know why these are "abuses" of the PA? Generaly it would be because they are NOT ALLOWED under it. What you have displayed (completely by accident), is that the government FAILED to FOLLOW the law and you somehow have confused that with the law itself being an abuse.

Yup. And there's an interesting related consideration. The same guys who vociferously "object" to the PA on the basis that there are some examples of government officials failing to FOLLOW the LAW (as you astutely note) seemingly have NO objection whatsoever to other laws merely because some government agents occasionally fail to follow those laws.

As I noted some time back in THIS very thread (and elsewhere), there are laws for search warrants, too. If a cop or a prosecutor fails to comply with those laws, the "evidence" can get tossed from court. (A) what do we "toss" from court in a matter (not a "case") involving national security where there is no plan of going to court? The point in many of these cases is STILL NOT to get "evidence" to use against a future criminal defendant. The POINT remains that these fuckers need to get stopped AHEAD of time.

(B) Let's consider an actual criminal law matter again, though. If a government agent is content to circumvent the warrant requirement entirely (by planting an eavesdropping bug, for example, in a "suspects" "office") and he does so to generate a "lead" to capture the criminal, he probably knows that he cannot ever admit what he has done. So it gets worse. He might LIE about how he came by the information. Or he might just use the information to get himself strategically placed to "inadvertently stumble upon" the crime. When a cop does this (if it ever happens) the cop is committing multiple crimes. Does that mean that we should toss out the eavesdropping laws? The very laws that require compliance with the 4th amendment?

If the answer is "no, we definitely should NOT toss out the eavesdropping and search warrant laws," then my question (yet again) is: so what's the basis for claiming that we should toss out the PA?

 

[BenNatuf]

If the answer is "no, we definitely should NOT toss out the eavesdropping and search warrant laws," then my question (yet again) is: so what's the basis for claiming that we should toss out the PA?

having any basis for it would assume some rationale... which of course implies rationality. I don't expect that from either liberals or liberalitarians. The only thing I expect are the usual appeal to emotion decrying all thier spent freedoms and lost liberties (which no-one seems to be able to identify).

When did anyone ever have the liberty to call a goat fucking terrorist in A-stan?
When did anyone ever have the liberty to adhere to, aid or abet our enemies?

A person seriously would have to be an idiot to think that the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to being protected against being searched or seized when your actively engaged in unauthorized discourse with the nations enemies. No-ones rights extend so far that there could be any presumption of privacy that would allow intercourse with the enemy during a time of war. These idiots seem to forget that providing for the common defence is also in the constitution and doing so is a legitimate exercize of granted authority. Gathering intelligence is an aspect of that.

That said there is one thing I have some concern with and thats the use of intelligence as evedence in a civilian criminal trial. Of course that concern is easily assuaged... just don't try the bastards and follow the dictates of international law as defined in the GC's... detain until the cessation of hostilities. We should be worried about trying these scum (in a military tribunal) after the war is over, not during it.

 

[Liability]

If the answer is "no, we definitely should NOT toss out the eavesdropping and search warrant laws," then my question (yet again) is: so what's the basis for claiming that we should toss out the PA?

having any basis for it would assume some rationale... which of course implies rationality. I don't expect that from either liberals or liberalitarians. The only thing I expect are the usual appeal to emotion decrying all thier spent freedoms and lost liberties (which no-one seems to be able to identify).

When did anyone ever have the liberty to call a goat fucking terrorist in A-stan?
When did anyone ever have the liberty to adhere to, aid or abet our enemies?

A person seriously would have to be an idiot to think that the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to being protected against being searched or seized when your actively engaged in unauthorized discourse with the nations enemies. No-ones rights extend so far that there could be any presumption of privacy that would allow intercourse with the enemy during a time of war. These idiots seem to forget that providing for the common defence is also in the constitution and doing so is a legitimate exercize of granted authority. Gathering intelligence is an aspect of that.

That said there is one thing I have some concern with and thats the use of intelligence as evedence in a civilian criminal trial. Of course that concern is easily assuaged... just don't try the bastards and follow the dictates of international law as defined in the GC's... detain until the cessation of hostilities. We should be worried about trying these scum (in a military tribunal) after the war is over, not during it.

A WISE man, Crusader Frank, once asked the famous question (which I've seen a few times since then): "If al qaeda isn't free to plot mass murder, are any of us truly free?" Well, yeah. I paraphrased his point a little, but it's all him anyway.

Very wise man, that Frank.

 

[AquaAthena]

"Ditto" that, P_P.

 

[Synthaholic]

It most definately is tea party politics that helped to defeat it inh this vote. Sad though, because the one thing nobody should be playing politics with is national security. The PA is a good tool and it should be kept in force so long as this war goes on.

Which war? Afghanistan, or the endless, so-called "War On Terror"®?

The war that is ongoing due to the AUMF the congress passed declaring it in 2001 against AQ and their affiliates, and any nations, states, organizations or persons who harbor, aid, abet or support them or their affiliates. What you fools fail to get is that the PA actually restricts what the President can do as before it passed he needed no warrant to gather intelligence against our enemies in the first place. He can do that under his authority as the CinC.

Then you mean the endless, so-called "War On Terror"®.

 

[Synthaholic]

It most definately is tea party politics that helped to defeat it inh this vote. Sad though, because the one thing nobody should be playing politics with is national security. The PA is a good tool and it should be kept in force so long as this war goes on.

It's not national security, it's false security. It's the sense of security . . . the feeling of security where none exists.

As long as people can walk across the Canadian and Mexican borders and shipping cargo is not secure, this is all just a very expensive, budget-busting illusion of security.

the idea that because our security is not perfect we shouldn't attempt any is kind of dumb.

To think that they would go the airplane route again when we have concentrated most of our attention there is kinda dumb, too.

 

[Liability]

Which war? Afghanistan, or the endless, so-called "War On Terror"®?

The war that is ongoing due to the AUMF the congress passed declaring it in 2001 against AQ and their affiliates, and any nations, states, organizations or persons who harbor, aid, abet or support them or their affiliates. What you fools fail to get is that the PA actually restricts what the President can do as before it passed he needed no warrant to gather intelligence against our enemies in the first place. He can do that under his authority as the CinC.

Then you mean the endless, so-called "War On Terror"®.

The so-called war on terror is, sadly, a bit misnamed. You guys love to harp on that trivial point.

But the war against the scumbags who wage war against us -- and who not only utilize the "tools" of terrorism but gladly embrace the handle "terrorists" -- is a perfectly valid thing for us to be doing.

Your mindless (drooling) "complaint" that the war is "endless" is really quite stupid of you. You seem to think that you've latched onto a real telling rhetorical "point." You haven't. Not even close.

There isn't a time limit on fighting an enemy that hasn't surrendered, you moron.

If the fuckwads trying to kill our people and attack our physical and property interests want the war to end, all they have to do is capitulate.

If that offends your precious sensibilities, too fucking bad. You remain a huge asshole, Simpleholic.

 

[Reasoning]

in my lifetime.

I'm not holding my breath about it staying out of government but if the most unconstitutional piece of legislation in US history stays off the books I'll sign up to become a democrat this year.

They will renew it this week when they hold the vote that only needs a simple majority.

Sad.

 

[Liability]

in my lifetime.

I'm not holding my breath about it staying out of government but if the most unconstitutional piece of legislation in US history stays off the books I'll sign up to become a democrat this year.

They will renew it this week when they hold the vote that only needs a simple majority.

Sad.

They are very likely to renew it.

They will do so without any needless "rule" requiring a ridiculous super-majority.

Wonderful!

Excellent.

As it should be.

Terrific.

GREAT!

And yes, I am serious.

There is not one single solitary rational argument against it.

 

[waltky]

Yea...

... an' next time we get hit by terrorists...

... all dem lefty lib'rals is gonna be raisin' a hue an' cry...

... wonderin' why...

... big mystery, ain't it?

 

[blu]

Yea...

... an' next time we get hit by terrorists...

... all dem lefty lib'rals is gonna be raisin' a hue an' cry...

... wonderin' why...

... big mystery, ain't it?

not really a mystery, bombing people for whats now 20 consecutive years tends to piss them off

 

[Liability]

Yea...

... an' next time we get hit by terrorists...

... all dem lefty lib'rals is gonna be raisin' a hue an' cry...

... wonderin' why...

... big mystery, ain't it?

not really a mystery, bombing people for whats now 20 consecutive years tends to piss them off

Oh sure. THAT'S it. Of course. Why didn't WE think of that?

They don't attack us because they hate our freedom and wealth or anything like that.

They don't attack us out of some insane notion of what Islam requires.

They attack us because we bomb them! For 20 years.

Pisses them off.

Yes. Now, suddenly it all makes sense.

(Not that we HAVE been doing any such thing, but let's not get between a whacked out blu and his ridiculous fantasies.)