Interesting story about the reauthorization of Patriot Act provisions. Please notice who takes the "for" position...
The simplest arguments are often the most effective. I imagine someone made a similar argument during the inception of the Patriot Act, but they were probably mostly ignored (like glynch!) due to the fallout of 9/11. Back then, people almost unanimously agreed: drop a few civil liberties to capture some terrorists.
I wonder if the teabaggers who claim to appreciate the constitution will make Franken one of their heroes. Somehow I don't think it will happen.
Not to defend the PATRIOT Act, but the Justice Dept. representative didn't make that argument. He said that describing the person subject to the "roving wiretap" is sufficient to satisfy the Constitutional requirement without actually naming him/her.
I've never claimed to be a teabagger, but as someone who believes the constitution and amendments are what they say...I support Franken in this case.
I have to wonder what would such a description be "black guy in Jeans and a T-Shirt" "White Guy in Jorts" Rocket River
Nah... "white guy in jorts" is chased down on C.O.P.S. "black guy in Jeans and TShirt" is taken care of by the real cops. This is more for Brown Guy with funny name.
Excellent point. Part of the problem with the PATRIOT Act is many of its provisions executed under extreme secrecy. One example discussed on Democracy Now! yesterday was "National Security Letters". Apparently, if you are served one such letter, you are prohibited from telling anybody about it (prior restraint?). The Bush Admin. used NSL's to get information from libraries while simultaneously telling the public that they would not do that. But since the librarians were threatened with 5 years in prison if they violated the gag provisions, nobody was able to expose the bald-faced lie at the time.
Sad that it takes someone like Franken to be so clear, or moreso that it took so long for that argument to be made clearly and more importantly, heard. How long will <s>republicans</s> politicians try to use fear to get us to give up our freedoms as defined by our Constitution? Do they truly think that we believe that if we give them all our freedom, that THEN and ONLY then will we be truly safe? It was alarming when it started, and it's more alarming now seeing people still clinging to this.
Added while I was replying, so sorry for the double post, but that is sickeningly not surprising. The last admin trampled every stopgap measure for balance and liberty that impeded their goals, and changed the rules as they went to allow them to do so, all touting our safety as the reason why. Forcing others to do their dirty work, and either promising them immunity or threatening their freedom to ensure secrecy and compliance. Whether it was the firing of DA's or trampling the fourth amendment or outing CIA identities of people they didn't like, they basically did as they pleased, and then covered it all up with a big can of "we did it to save you, you should be very afraid". SICKENING, and this is the very type of government we were led to believe wasn't in charge of our free country when I was growing up. Either we were very naive back then, or it is just that egregious now, but probably a little of both.
The funny thing is. . .they would look Incredulous when Conspiracy Theorist put these things out there. "NO WAY OUR GOVERNMENT WOULD DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT " "yea. . . it would" Rocket River
Sweet. He's already reached his political apex; I don't see any reason why this guy can't take up for the late Senators Kennedy and Wellstone to be the liberal standard-bearer in the Senate, for many years to come. Guy was a comedian / writer of satire par excellence. Of course he understands the scalpel of language, getting down to the principles of the matter. Check him out here, making the case for health care, ultimately getting angry teabaggers to nod along with him. Spoiler <object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SCNs7Zpqo98&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SCNs7Zpqo98&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object> No different to him than winning over a roomful of hecklers. [Heads off to C-SPAN to watch this Senate hearings p*rn...]
That's good stuff. It's nice to see him him sticking to logic and rational discussion. It's also nice to see people who have concerns listening. They may or may not be swayed but at least they are listening.
I must agree on this one. Rather than resort to attacks, etc, Senator Franken made a rational and well reasoned appeal to the Constitution. I disagree with Franken on many things, but I applaud him here.
Impressive video. You've got to think Al is one of the most approachable and down to earth guys in Washington, despite "Celebrity" status.
QUESTION: How many folx are in Congress now . .to MAKE A DIFFERENCE and how many are there to line their pockets? I think the PocketLiners are there 2:1 maybe 3:1 Rocket River
