The Most Anger-Inducing Article EVER!!!

The Senate is threatening to "hold up" renewal of the USA-PATRIOT Act.

They complained that the House-Senate compromise now being considered takes back some civil liberty protections that senators had agreed to, including changing a Senate requirement that the government inform the targets of a "sneak and peek" search warrant within seven to 30 days.

"Sneak and peek" search warrants allow police to conduct secret searches of people's homes or businesses and inform them later.

Why are they jackasses? Because they're seriously considering renewing this unConstitutional abomination. Threatening to "hold it up" is not anywhere near enough. Now, normally, I think the ACLU is completely full of shit, but for once, I'm wondering where the hell they and their lawyers are. USA-PATRIOT violates several clauses of the Bill of Rights, and should have been in the news every single day since its inception, being challenged in the Supreme Court.

Now, for the last few months I've been keeping my boiling fury at the current administration's horrible record relatively under control, instead focusing on silly news stories and whatnot, due to my general lack of opportunity to blog. However, sometimes you come across a news story that's just an intolerable provocation.
So, let me tell you a story.
This weekend, on Fox News Sunday, which you may or may not watch, one of the guests was the Democratic Senator from West Virginia, John D. Rockefeller.
Now, if you want to read for yourself, the transcript is available here, but the relevant quotes can be found below.

WALLACE: Senator, you're quite right. You didn't get the presidential daily brief or the senior executive intelligence brief. You got the national intelligence estimate.

But the Silberman commission, a presidential commission that looked into this, did get copies of those briefs, and they say that they were, if anything, even more alarmist, even less nuanced, than the intelligence you saw, and yet you, not the president, said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat.

WALLACE: Senator Rockefeller, I want to play another clip from your 2002 speech authorizing the use of force, this time specifically on the question of Saddam's nuclear program. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROCKEFELLER: There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years, and he could have it earlier.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Now, by that point, Senator, you had read the National Intelligence Estimate, correct?

ROCKEFELLER: In fact, there were only six people in the Senate who did, and I was one of them. I'm sure Pat was another.

WALLACE: OK. But you had read that, and now we've read a declassified...

ROCKEFELLER: But, Chris, let's...

WALLACE: Can I just ask my question, sir?

ROCKEFELLER: Yes.

WALLACE: And then you can answer as you choose. That report indicated there was a disagreement among analysts about the nuclear program. The State Department had a lot more doubts than the CIA did about whether he was pursuing the nuclear program. You never mentioned those doubts. You came to the same conclusion the president did.

ROCKEFELLER: Because that — first of all, that National Intelligence Estimate was not called for by the administration. It was called for by former Senator Bob Graham, who was chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and Dick Durbin.

We didn't receive it until just a couple of days before we voted. Then we had to go read it and compare it to everything else that we thought we'd learned about intelligence, and I did make that statement. And I did make that vote.

But, Chris, the important thing is that when I started looking at the weapons of mass destruction intelligence along with Pat Roberts, I went down to the floor, and I said I made a mistake. I would have never voted yes if I knew what I know today.

Hindsight is 20/20, eh, Senator? So, it's in your hands before the vote, and you read it - and still voted for the war.
JUST WAIT, IT GETS BETTER.

WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren't you responsible for your vote?

ROCKEFELLER: No. I'm...

WALLACE: You're not?

ROCKEFELLER: No.

?!?
WTF?!?
I mean, WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK?!?
You ignored the intelligence documents given to you regarding an upcoming vote about SENDING OUR TROOPS INTO COMBAT IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY, and now think you "shouldn't be held responsible?"
WHY THE FUCK DO WE PAY THESE ASSHOLES?!?The facts of the current brouhaha over prewar intelligence are right there. The Senators were given the intelligence documents upon which the Bush administration predicated its request for war; the Senators ignored said documents; the Senators voted for the war - even Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy did - and so did Barack Obama and Evan Bayh, by the way - and now, not only do they think they shouldn't be held accountable, but they blame the war on Bush.

Now, let's be clear: I think Bush is the worst president this century; maybe the worst president in the history of this country. But I don't think it has anything whatsoever to do with Iraq. I'll tell you why, before we go on:

1. "There were no WMDs." For 12 years prior to our current actions, the U.N. has been sending weapons inspectors into Iraq. This is because, according to the best intelligence available, President Clinton, now retired Gen. Wesley Clark, and most of the current "it's Bush's fault" agitators believed that Saddam Hussein possessed a vast store of chemical and biological weapons, and was working to obtain nuclear ones. The Bush administration's decision to advance with military action was a direct result of the treatment of those same inspectors by Saddam's regime, which denied them access to sites where they believed weapons to be present repeatedly, often in a pattern that the chief of the weapons inspection team called "indicative of delaying tactics, in an attempt to cover the relocation and concealment of any weapons present."
In other words, they jerked us around to buy time to hide 'em. Now, with most of the administration - namely those members who might know where they're buried - dead or in jail, it may be hundreds of years before any weapons are found. All we know FOR SURE at this point is that we haven't found any - not that there WEREN'T any.

2. "We're not getting anything done over there." Oh, really?
Well, let's see. We've liberated a country, with a population vastly greater than was our own at the time of the Revolutionary War, in about 1/3 of the time that said Revolutionary War took (8 years;) with, so far, a fraction of the casualties suffered during the Revolutionary War. We've given the newly freed Iraq an opportunity to create its own Constitution - which it has, and has ratified, a process that took our country more than a decade; we've set up public schools, for the first time in nearly fifty years in Iraq, where our country didn't have government-run schooling until the 1840s; we've set up hospitals in a country that has basically had no health care for anyone not in the military since Saddam first took power.
I challenge ANYONE to tell me that that's "nothing."

3. "There was no al-Quaeda presence or tie in Iraq!" Well, then, how come they're fighting so very, very hard to get it back? According to the Iraqi interim government - not our own intelligence sources, of course, since everyone apparently "knows" they're crap - over 70% of the so-called "insurgents" are troops funded and trained by al-Quaeda and funneled into Iraq via the Syrian and Jordanian borders, which is why the Iraqis are screaming at Syria and Jordan to secure said borders. You might have read about that in the newspapers. The "insurgents" are being led by a man named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was one of the top officers of Al-Quaeda; yet somehow, there's no connection whatsoever. Excuse me for remaining a tad skeptical on that point. Oh, and let me add another little tidbit from the Rockefeller interview on FNS:

WALLACE: Is Zarqawi on the rocks?

ROCKEFELLER: No. In fact, it's one of my absolute frustrations throughout this entire process. Usama bin Laden, Zarqawi — we have not taken down either one. Now, Usama bin Laden is up at 15,000 feet somewhere and is hard to get to. Zarqawi is in Iraq. He's in Jordan. He's been there all along. He started up in the northeast section. He's never left it.

And he is the great Al Qaeda threat, in my judgment, these days, as opposed to Usama bin Laden, and our good intelligence now, after 1998, and our good intelligence and our good military have failed to bring him in. I don't understand that. And I think that's a direct question that the president ought to be asked. Get Zarqawi, and our problems are going to start diminishing very quickly.

That's right. Your Democratic Senator from West Virginia admits that at the very least, one of the top al-Quaeda officers, maybe the highest remaining in the organization, has "been in Iraq all along." What's that, if not a tie?

4. "There was no need for us to be there in the first place!" Except, of course, for the fact that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who had killed over 780,000 people according to the most conservative estimates. Except, of course, for the fact that he had publicly asserted his intention to use military force to conquer the entire region. Don't believe me? Search online. His speeches are a matter of public record, no matter that you may have to dig a little. Except, of course, for the fact that in his invasion of Kuwait, he proved his willingness to engage other countries without provocation.

5. "The U.S. was acting unilaterally!" This, of course, ignores the other 49 countries that supported the Iraq campaign; 41 of which actually contributed troops; they are unimportant, because France and Germany, both with substantial immigrant Islamic populations, loudly voiced their opposition, because they were terrified of the kind of terrorist backlash that France has in fact suffered the last two weeks. Of course the U. S. and U. K. don't count; any use of their forces by a Republican president is automatically assumed to be wrong these days, but how about South Korea? or Italy? or Poland? or 7 different former Soviet splinter republics? (Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Armenia) or FIJI, for goodness' sakes; Fiji contributed 335 troops to the UN security forces over there, which is nearly a TENTH of their total forces under arms. Unilaterally? Sorry, guys, the facts simply aren't there for you.


Actually, Iraq is one of the only 2 or 3 things that Bush has done right during his administration. What totally mystifies me is how his liberal critics seem determined to ignore all the really catastrophic things he's done wrong, which they could attack him for with perfect justification, in favor of screaming "THE WAR IS WRONG!!1!"
What should they be attacking him for?
USA-PATRIOT.
Also known as H. R. 3162, USA-PATRIOT purports to give law enforcement agencies better abilities to cope with the threat of domestic terrorism. In reality, it guts the Bill of Rights (which is available here.)
Want to see how?
Amendment 4 to the U. S. Constitution reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Patriot Act gives this the finger:

`(1) ATTORNEY FOR THE GOVERNMENT- Upon an application made under section 3122(a)(1), the court shall enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device anywhere within the United States, if the court finds that the attorney for the Government has certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. The order, upon service of that order, shall apply to any person or entity providing wire or electronic communication service in the United States whose assistance may facilitate the execution of the order. Whenever such an order is served on any person or entity not specifically named in the order, upon request of such person or entity, the attorney for the Government or law enforcement or investigative officer that is serving the order shall provide written or electronic certification that the order applies to the person or entity being served.

In other words, as long as the government guy says "it's legit" they get permission to go ahead with wiretaps on you.

The Sixth Amendment reads as follows:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

This is what the writ of "habeus corpus" is all about. Habeus corpus allows a prisoner to require that he be brought before a court to determine if he is, in fact, being detained legally. Of course, the Patriot Act couldn't let that alone, saying that

`(6) LIMITATION ON INDEFINITE DETENTION- An alien detained solely under paragraph (1) who has not been removed under section 241(a)(1)(A), and whose removal is unlikely in the reasonably foreseeable future, may be detained for additional periods of up to six months only if the release of the alien will threaten the national security of the United States or the safety of the community or any person.

which means that unless he submits a writ of habeus corpus, a suspected terrorist can be held up to six months on the sole say-so of whoever arrested him in the first place. Well, that's ok, the writ of habeus corpus can get him out anyway, right? WRONG.

`(3) APPEALS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 2253 of title 28, in habeas corpus proceedings described in paragraph (1) before a circuit or district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. There shall be no right of appeal in such proceedings to any other circuit court of appeals.

In other words, the only court that can take your petition if you are a suspected terrorist is the Washington, D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals - not your home jurisdiction, or even the one you were arrested in. This, coincidentally, violates the Fifth Amendment protection against being stripped of your freedom without due process of law, which reads as follows:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Speaking of which, according to the Patriot Act, people can be arrested, records can be obtained, wiretaps can be issued, homes / cars / storage sheds / businesses / outhouses can be searched at will, all on the say-so of the Attorney General, without any evidence of a Grand Jury involved, in direct contravention of the Fifth Amendment. Not only that, but one of the big issues the Senators are grappling with today is whether the government should have to tell you your home has been searched at all; under the Patriot Act as it stands, it's perfectly ok for the feds to get a warrant, search your house, and then wait up to a month to get around to telling you that your home was searched - this is called "delaying notice of the execution of a warrant." It goes a little something like this:

`(b) DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--

`(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);

`(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and

`(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'.

Which means that if they don't feel like telling you, they can poke about in your personal business without even knocking first.

Doesn't THAT seem like a good reason to hate Bush?
Your freedom and rights as an American are under siege. I urge you most strongly to register to vote and get rid of any candidate, Republican OR Democrat, who thinks that the Patriot Act is a good idea; ultimately, their power as members of the government derives, as Thomas Jefferson said, from "the consent of the governed," and it's long past time to assert your refusal to consent to allow your home to be searched without notification or cause, your refusal to allow yourself to be detained without your right to face your accusers, your refusal to allow yourself to be criminalized without recourse.

I will leave you with a quote I think the government has every reason to fear, and one that becomes more appropriate each and every day: ladies and gentlement, I give you the list of crimes committed against the colonists by King George of Great Britain, from the Declaration of Independence:

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free system of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislature, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Well said, indeed.