A Sneak and Peak Look at the JUSTICE Act

3 Provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire at the end of the year. Are we trading civil liberties for security, or protecting our civil liberties, through security?

Where are the ICLU lawyers, damn it?!

Comment reference here

The Unfounded Fear Over "Domestic Spying"

From the Andrew S. Grossman at the Heritage Foundation:

FISA Modernization Is Not About "Warrantless Wiretapping"

And what does any of this post have to do with polar bears? No one understands this better than Hugh Hewitt.

Here we go again!

I heard about the USA Today article on Laura Ingraham during my drive to work this morning. I was extremely agitated by the time I got out of my car.

I swear to God...these 4th estate 5th column idiots are going to get us killed.


05-12-06 Update:

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: Only through the press, we begin to learn the truth. The secret collection of phone call records tens of millions of Americans. Now, are you telling me that tens of millions of Americans are involved with al-Qaida? If that’s the case, we’ve really failed in any kind of a war on terror.

I can’t express to you how scary-stupid this sounds. And he’s a Congressional leader?! By his logic, the TSA is way out of line for making EVERY PASSENGER go through security bag checks, rather than singling out JUST the terrorists for security screening. Unbelievable!

More at Flopping Aces.

"Wiretap this!"

Days after the arrest of Abu Zubaydah, at the time the highest-ranking al-Qaeda operative in U.S. custody, Bush summoned CIA director George Tenet to the White House to ask what intelligence Abu Zubaydah had provided his captors. According to Risen’s source, Tenet told Bush that Abu Zubaydah, badly wounded during his capture, was too groggy from painkillers to talk coherently. In response, Bush asked, “Who authorized putting him on pain medication?” Risen makes the leap that the Bush episode may represent the “most direct link yet between Bush and the harsh treatment of prisoners by both the CIA and the U.S. military.”

-The Book Behind the Bombshell


The ACLU filed a lawsuit against warrantless wiretapping. Is anyone really surprised, here? Of all the perfect candidates for wiretapping, I'd say the ACLU stands at the top of my list of enemy living among us.

If you want to help fight the ACLU on this, you can start by clicking here.

And what is the reasoning behind Senator Dick Durbin's decision not to vote to confirm Alito to the Supreme Court?

“Based on his record, I’m concerned that Judge Alito will not be willing to stand up to a president who is determined to seize too much power over our personal lives,” Durbin said in a statement.

Excuse me....but I've had enough with the hyperbole and the scare-mongering. Dick Durbin.... i.e., TURBAN DURBIN....is the same U.S. Senator who compared the actions of U.S. soldiers at Guantanamo to that of Soviet Gulags, Nazis, and the Pol Pot regime.

Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot murdered around 50 million people. Out of the 70,000 battlefield combatants captured in afghanistan, only around 800- the worst of the worst- were detained at GITMO; hundreds have since been released. Those who remained at Guantanamo have been made to feel uncomfortable, such as listening to Christina Aguilera songs (ok...I admit, maybe that is torture...). On the one hand, we have Hitler committing genocide and at GITMO....we have.....all hell breaking lose because urine was accidentally splashed onto a Koran, thoughtfully supplied, with care and reverence of handling, by the U.S. military? What...in the...blue....hell...is the world coming to?! Has it lost its mind?! THERE IS NO COMPARISON!!!! You have, what was it again? 5 cases of alleged abuses? Minor, if I remember; and out of something like 27,000 interrogations conducted, only a handful of accusations of abuse? Not forgetting that part of the al Qaeda handbook tactic is to allege abuse even in the absence of it.

It just amazes me how the abuses at Abu Ghraib and the non-abuses at Guantanamo are inflated to inflame the world against us. The language used by many on the left would make you think that President Bush has taken over as dictator of the U.S. That is just plain crazy-think! Look at all the anti-Bush books out there; the protests; do you see Cindy Sheehan being thrown into prison? Harry Belafonte charged with treason? Democratic Senators targeted for assassination? Michael Moore put into a starvation weight-watchers concentration camp? No? Well then, have a hot cup of stfu!!!

Max Boot of the LA Times came out with a great op-ed last week:

If you want to see real abuses of civil liberties, read Geoffrey R. Stone's 2004 book "Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism." It tells how John Adams jailed a congressman for criticizing his "continual grasp for power." How Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and had the army arrest up to 38,000 civilians suspected of undermining the Union cause. How Woodrow Wilson imprisoned Socialist Party leader Eugene Debs for opposing U.S. entry into World War I. And how Franklin D. Roosevelt consigned 120,000 Japanese Americans to detention camps.

You can also read about how presidents from FDR to Richard Nixon used the FBI to spy on, and occasionally blackmail and harass, their political opponents. The Senate's Church Committee in 1976 blew the whistle on decades of misconduct, including FBI investigations of such nefarious characters as Eleanor Roosevelt, William O. Douglas, Barry Goldwater and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

All you have to do is recite this litany of excess to realize the absurdity of the cries of impeachment coming from the loonier precincts of the left. Muttering about "slippery slopes" isn't enough to convince most people that fascism is descending. If the president's critics want that part of the nation that doesn't read the Nation to believe that he's a threat to our freedom, they'd better do more than turn up the level of vituperation. They'd better find some real victims — the Eugene Debses and Martin Luther Kings of the war on terror.

Civil libertarians thought they were in luck when a college student in Massachusetts claimed that two FBI agents had shown up to interview him after he had requested a copy of Mao Tse-tung's Little Red Book. Ted Kennedy cited this incident to warn of the Patriot Act's "chilling effect on free speech and academic freedom." Relax, Senator. Free speech is safe. The student lied.

The anti-Bush brigade hasn't had any luck in turning up actual instances of abuse, despite no end of effort. The ACLU compiled a list of supposed victims of the Patriot Act. After examining each case, however, Sen. Dianne Feinstein — no friend of the administration — said "it does not appear that these charges rose to the level of 'abuse.' "

Read the rest of the article.

The civil rights hysteria over what the mainstream press is mischaracterizing as "domestic" spying and wiretapping, is another example of how nutty things have become. This is not domestic spying. Under article 2 of the Constitution, the President as Commander-in-Chief has the legal authority to justify the monitoring of outside communications between what they believe to be al Qaeda operatives and contacts within our own borders. Based upon previous actions of Congress and previous Administrations, I believe the President is standing on solid ground. What is unfortunate, is that I think this has probably compromised the program, to an extent.

As far as I see it, the President of the U.S. does not have to go through FISA, created in 1978 and a dinosaur for dealing with today's technology of cell phones, lap tops, fiber optics. He's on good solid ground, under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. And even if he didn't have the legal authority to conduct these wiretaps, or the approval of Congress, he should be given the power to safeguard our country. To think that the NSA has any interest in wiretapping your average Dick and Jane is just delusional paranoia. Why not change the FISA law then and update it? Well, this program was "secret" (and briefed a dozen times to Congress- so it is amazing how politicized it has become, thanks to the NY Times) before a certain newsrag decided to go public with it (oh, and what timing! Just after the historic Iraqi elections, around the time when the Patriot Act would be voted upon for renewal, and just before the author of the expose, James Risen, had a new book coming out) ; to have gone through Congress, it would have become known to the terrorists, alerting them in a similar manner to how Osama realized that his communications were being eased-dropped upon, resulting in an end to his transmissions . We've also already seen how smoothly The Patriot Act has gone through Congress. So when John McCain says he doesn't know anyone in Congress who would not grant the President this authority...um, just where has the good Senator been, lately? Since the war, Democratic opponents to the President have behaved at every turn, as nothing short of alarmists, obstructionists, quagmirists, defeatists, and political opportunists.

For some of the best analysis on the NSA wiretapping, go to Hugh Hewitt and Flopping Aces. (I thought about linking to some opinions from the Kos Kids...but then I thought, "why waste your time?"

Fun, gratuitous "guilty pleasure" reads:
Our "Jack Bauer" President
George Bush is No Jack Bauer
We Need Jack
Jack Bauer's America
Blogs 4 Bauer.com

BY THE NUMBERS

July 10, 2005 Civil libertarians argue that the Patriot Act curtails American freedoms. Fans of the act say those fears are overblown. By the numbers, since inception of the Patriot Act through 2004:

Civil rights complaints to the Justice Department's inspector general:

7,136

Number of those deemed related to the Patriot Act:

1

"Sneak and peek" warrants, allowing searches without telling a subject:

155

Roving wiretaps:

49

Personal records seizures under Section 215 of the act:

35

Source: Justice Department inspector general

This article is as good as any in regards to the importance of The Patriot Act. And this.

Really....there is such scare-mongering and misunderstanding over The Patriot Act.

Personally, I have no problem with profiling. I believe the Israelis profile, to great success. Profiling doesn't mean you automatically believe someone is an enemy/criminal/terrorist. But it's ridiculous to be so racially/ethnically sensitive, that you ignore obvious characteristics....and confuse prejudice and racism for common sense and the paying attention of, red flags and patterns of behavior that an individual exhibits. The PC crap may get us killed. To hell with that. If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, if it looks like a duck...well guess what, Sherlock? Bloody 'ell, I'll be damned if it ain't a flappin' duck!!!

I relate it in this manner:

I used to do security work for a retail company; and part of my job was keeping my eyes open for shoplifters. To borrow the special forces color coding system, for a moment, as an instore detective, you should always maintain a status of yellow alert. This should be your level of scrutiny in how you treat everyone who enters the store.

Now, let's say you have 2 customers enter your store and one of them is wearing a 2 piece bikini and the other is dressed in baggy clothes. Who are you going to pay attention to more? (Ok...you male pigs...forget that it's a 2-piece bikini, but a dude in speedos). Logic, not racial or cultural/class discrimination, demands that the customer in the sagging pants raise your level of alertness initially to orange alert.....until you've had some adequate time to observe the customer in sagging jeans to profile his pattern of behavior. Shoplifters often exhibit behavioral shopping patterns that are different from regular shoppers. If he shops like a normal person, he's clear. You've lowered your alertness level from orange back down to yellow (never white alert.....even innocent ol' granny could be a professional shoplifter!). In the case of the customer in speedo and the customer in baggy clothing, what you are distinguishing in your initial assessment, is the fact that the person with loose clothing has greater opportunity for theft; not that you actually believe he has come into the store to steal (to the extent that as a security person, you have to assume that everyone who enters the store could be a potential shoplifter).

Another analogy: if I see someone walking down the street and he's wearing an expensive name-brand suit and tie, Rolex watch, and I hear him talking in an Italian accent with someone over a cell-phone, it's safe to assume this guy has money and possible influence and is foreign...probably Italian. I just profiled him, within seconds, without knowing him. It was automatic. By the same token, if I see someone wearing a Bruce Springsteen concert T-shirt, I might assume he is probably a fan of Bruce Springsteen. I could be completey wrong, but, logically, am I really far out of the ballpark in making this wild hunch? Based on that, I might even assume he might be liberal; the chances of this are less likely, based on this initial assessment. But again, I have some ample reason to think that if he likes Bruce's music, enough so as to wear his concert t-shirt, perhaps he might share Bruce's political views, as well. It's worth further investigation, of course. (For the record, I love Bruce Springsteen's music on a pretty consistent basis; but as you can tell from this blog, I share little in common with him, politically).

If someone dresses and speaks in a manner that is reflective of hip-hop culture, is it really so outrageous for me to "stereotype" this person's tastes and assume he likes hip-hop? Again, I could be wrong, but still, it is a logical conclusion that I've drawn.

Our brains classify and stereotype all the time, naturally. It is a way to process and organize information. It is not being racist, in the negative connotation of the word. If a person is black, you're going to assume he has black parents, even though it might not be the case.

I'll give one more example: my ethnic makeup is Southeast Asian. I am, however, adopted (born in Phoenix, Arizona) from birth. My father is white caucasian, so I have a European last name.

Let's say I'm making a store purchase and upon handing my credit card to the cashier, who reads the name on the card and the signature on the back, she asks to see my driver's license. Should I automatically feel indignant and put upon, because I feel that she is probably singling me out? That she is being racially insensitive to my feelings by assuming that I'd have an Asian last name, because I look Asian? Isn't this stereotyping, by assuming that everyone has parents who are biologically their own, and hence familial last names that reflect one's ancestral heritage? Well....d'uh! Yes of course, it is! And SO WHAT?!?! The cashier made a logical presumption. And quite frankly, shouldn't I be happy that, even if she hadn't asked the other customers in line who came before me (although, for true security, everyone should have been asked), it shows a level of wherewithal that she at least had enough sense to doublecheck that I am in fact the owner of the credit card I handed her?

The chances of someone's last name not being reflective of their ethnicity, unless you are a female of marrying age, are slim enough, that it is ok for orange flags to go off, that maybe the credit card I am handing the store clerk might, in fact, belong to someone else.

This is my long-winded, 2 in the AM, roundabout way of saying, I really don't give a flamin' care about racial profiling if it saves us from another 9/11. Given the 5oo million pouring across our borders every year, I'd say, "go ahead and encroach upon my civil liberties by examining my library checkouts." Seriously, The Patriot Act, if anything, doesn't go far enough. I'm sick of the irrational scare-mongering over this. Even though I've not read her book, I've read enough about it to say I'm in complete alignment to Michelle Malkin's take on these matters.

The Polio Fallacy (written by Thomas Sowell)

June 17, 2005

The disappearance of an American teenager in Aruba has been more than a tragedy for her and for her family. It is the latest of many tragedies to strike trusting people who have long been sheltered from dangers and who have acted as if there were no dangers.

Not only individuals but whole nations have lost their sense of danger after having been protected from those dangers.

After the devastating disease of polio was finally conquered by vaccines, back in the 1960s, the number of people afflicted declined almost to the vanishing point. Some people then began to see no need to take the vaccine, since apparently no one was getting polio any more, so who was there to catch it from?

The result was a needless resurgence of crippling and death from this terrible disease.

The kind of thinking involved in the polio fallacy has appeared in many other contexts. When some public disorder gets underway and a massive arrival of police on the scene brings everything under control immediately, many in the media and in politics deplore such "over-reaction" on the part of the police to a minor disturbance.

It never occurs to such people that it was precisely the arrival of huge numbers of cops on the scene that brought the disturbance to a screeching halt without having to use force.

During the Cold War, Communist expansionism around the world somehow never struck Western Europe, which was protected by the American nuclear umbrella — and which often accused the United States of unnecessary militarism. American military power was like the polio vaccine that was considered unnecessary.

The latest version of the polio fallacy is the demonizing of the Patriot Act. Some people are yelling louder than ever that they have been silenced, that we have had our freedom destroyed, all as a result of the Patriot Act.

Let us go back to square one, to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, which were the reason for passage of the Patriot Act.

Do you remember how long every major public event — the World Series, Christmas celebrations, the Super Bowl — was a time of fear of a new terrorist attack? Do you remember all the advice to stock up on medicines or food, so that we could ride out any new terrorist onslaught?

Do you remember all the places that terrorists were expected to strike? The different colors of national alerts being announced regularly?

Now, after years have passed without any of these feared disasters actually happening, the eroding of a sense of danger has led many to repeat the polio fallacy and act as if the dangers from which we have been protected did not exist — and that the enhanced protection is therefore unnecessary.

The many crackdowns on domestic terrorists under the Patriot Act, as well as the ability to intercept and disrupt their communications under the powers of that Act, receive little or no credit for the fact that there has been no repetition of anything like 9/11.

The man principally responsible for law enforcement crackdowns on terrorists in the United States during this dangerous period — Attorney General John Ashcroft — not only received no gratitude for our safety, the complacency to which that safety led allowed many to indulge themselves in the luxury of vilifying Ashcroft at every turn.

Like the police who arrive in large numbers to quell disturbances and are then accused of "over-reacting," the Patriot Act has been depicted as an over-reaction to terrorist activity. Indeed, the very word "terrorist" has been banned in much of the politically correct media.

The Patriot Act is no closer to perfection than anything else human. It has costs, as every benefit has had costs, hard as it is for many among the intelligentsia to accept anything less than "win-win" situations.

"I have a real problem with fascism," as one lady in a trendy California bookstore said fiercely, when discussing the Patriot Act.

She was aghast when I replied, "I hadn't noticed any fascism."

Have you?