Bush Authorized NSA To Spy Inside US

[Deegan]

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Title 50 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, Section 1802, "Electronic surveillance authorization without court order," reads: "[T]he President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year," provided a series of conditions are met. Surveillance must be directed only at agents of foreign powers; there can be no likely surveillance of a "U.S. person", and there must be strict congressional oversight in the intelligence committees.

This is loophole, but unfortunately, he apparently did this for longer then a year, so he might be in trouble. I would assume they have other talking point, I am interested in hearing all about this, and why they would risk the backlash if they were not clear about the legality?

I just can't believe with all the brilliant people around Bush, how they could break rules, and not have justification?:doh

 

[Caine]

Caine, I am so sick of the Bushies invoking 9-11. Bush, Cheney, and Condi have all stated that this kind of wiretapping was necessary or thousands of lives could be lost. Shut up!

Did anyone notice that when Bush talked about Osama bin Laden in yesterday's news conference, he initially called him Saddam. Oh brother. :roll:

/Fake Paranoid Mode/

Hmm... Maybe he did it on purpose to slip a mention of Saddam in there and confuse Americans, in order to gain support for the war????

/Fake Paranoid Mode/

 

[aps]

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Title 50 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, Section 1802, "Electronic surveillance authorization without court order," reads: "[T]he President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year," provided a series of conditions are met. Surveillance must be directed only at agents of foreign powers; there can be no likely surveillance of a "U.S. person", and there must be strict congressional oversight in the intelligence committees.

This is loophole, but unfortunately, he apparently did this for longer then a year, so he might be in trouble. I would assume they have other talking point, I am interested in hearing all about this, and why they would risk the backlash if they were not clear about the legality?

I just can't believe with all the brilliant people around Bush, how they could break rules, and not have justification?:doh

Deegan, I'm with you. I think that it is the result of hubris. This administration has found ways to justify torture and why we don't have to follow the Geneva Conventions. I think they thought that they would get away with this or that they could invoke "9-11" and people would forgive the illegality of it. But it all comes down to arrogance and thinking they can get away with anything.

 

[oldreliable67]

although what we do know is that the wiretaping in this case was not warranted.

And you know this how?

Look, swap places with the Pres for a moment. You've got a secret NSA suveillance program going. It is new technology and is being very valuable and is producing good intel. Now you're making a public appearance. What is the last thing you want to disclose at this public appearance? Do you want to tell al Qaeda about your secret NSA survellance program? Don't be silly. Of course not.

What is safe to talk about? The standard FISA procedures for wiretaps. You can reiterate that safely all day long if need be, and not give anything away.

Which would you rather do?

 

[Caine]

And you know this how?

Because I watched CSPAN2 today and the senate addressed it.

Look, swap places with the Pres for a moment. You've got a secret NSA suveillance program going. It is new technology and is being very valuable and is producing good intel. Now you're making a public appearance. What is the last thing you want to disclose at this public appearance? Do you want to tell al Qaeda about your secret NSA survellance program? Don't be silly. Of course not.

What is safe to talk about? The standard FISA procedures for wiretaps. You can reiterate that safely all day long if need be, and not give anything away.

Which would you rather do?

Lets see what aps took from the whitehouse website.....

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

Now, I am in no way talking about the leak to the press, which I think you are getting confused with my point here.

I am stating that in this address above......the bolded portion specifically, the President is saying that a wiretap requires a court order. Thus he KNEW that a wiretap requires a court order. But now he states that he was well within his constitutional authority to do it WITHOUT a court order. Which one is it Mr. President? Did you lie in the above statement? Or are you lying now? Either way, I don't like being lied to when it comes to the checks and balances of security.

Now, the fact that the President mentioned our wiretapping capabilities before, and they have been discussed and documents on past testimoney in congress is publicly avaliable on line already tells the terrorists that we have this capability, so the argument of helping the terrorists is false.

Now are my statements clear?

 

[oldreliable67]

Now are my statements clear?

Yep. And I think you're reasoning is flawed. When you say...

Thus he KNEW that a wiretap requires a court order. But now he states that he was well within his constitutional authority to do it WITHOUT a court order. Which one is it Mr. President? Did you lie in the above statement? Or are you lying now?

...I think you're failing to recognize the difference between public rhetoric and private action, between speaking for public consumption versus revealing secret programs. The NSA surveillance program is/was secret. It was covert. You would have preferred the President to reveal a secret activity? (Then you must not have objected to the outing of Valerie Plame?) Moreover, he didn't lie: the wiretaps under FISA did/do require court orders.

 

[Caine]

Moreover, he didn't lie: the wiretaps under FISA did/do require court orders.

So, he DID lie....

Because during Monday's News Conference, Bush stated that he was within his constitutional authority to conduct the unwarranted wiretaps.

 

[aquapub]

Picture this:

Marines in Iraq just acquired phone records from the home of a terrorist in Iraq. The records show 12 very recent, two-minute calls, placed closely together and to a number that traces back to a young, Arab, Muslim man in Brooklyn who has been in America for 6 months on a student Visa. He lives alone and has been working at a laundromat, yet he has an account with $40,000 in it that receives monthly deposits of $5,000 from a bank account in Saudi Arabia linked to the terror cell in Iraq.

This guy is your stereotypical terrorist.

If the people who are crucifying President Bush for authorizing monitoring of international calls to terror suspects in America, and who are opposing the Patriot Act have their way, the federal government could not listen to the phone calls coming from Iraq to this highly suspicious immigrant, and the courts would dramatically slow their investigative efforts down.




When deciding whether or not to support the renewal of the Patriot Act or not, it is important to realize a few things.

If you side against it, with the McCain anti-torture amendment or not, you are also siding against roving wire taps (removing these from the game would put counterterrorism efforts back into the Stone Age); you are also siding against the removal of judicial red tape that, since the Patriot Act was first enacted, has kept the FBI from having to gather the same level of compelling evidence against terror suspects as common criminals to justify searches and detainments-In other words, the Patriot Act keeps us from having to get a traditional search warrant for someone who may be headed to a football stadium to detonate a bomb; you would also have to side against middle America in its entirety to vote against the Patriot Act.

Do FOREIGN terror suspects REALLY have any Constitutional rights? Especially a Constitutional right to privacy which can’t even be found mentioned for AMERICANS anywhere in the Constitution?

Democrats are just dead wrong on this, and thank God middle America doesn't go in for all this "Stalin all over again" hysteria being used to discourage us from defending ourselves with common sense security measures.

 

[BWG]

Where would 'new technology' be revealed? The warrants are issued by a secret court, they don't have to be returned and are sealed. So if I understand correctly, under FISA, nothing is revealed to the public.

The records and files of the cases are sealed and may not be revealed even to persons whose prosecutions are based on evidence obtained under FISA warrants, except to a limited degree set by district judges' rulings on motions to suppress. 50 U.S.C. §1803(c). There is no provision for the return of each executed warrant to the FISC, much less with an inventory of items taken, nor for certification that the surveillance was conducted according to the warrant and its "minimization" requirements.

Source For Quote

 

[Stinger]

Re: Bush Authorized NSA To Spy Inside US On Citizens

If you won't post proof of your statements, you should only talk about what you're sure of.

Oh I'm sure I heard it and the Brooklyn Bridge Bomber was also caught by one of these, that on the afternoon news.

The phone tapping can still be done, but properly, with a court order.

He doesn't need it.

This provides a check/balance situation. Let's don't trust politicians to listen in because they think they have the power to, without regulation. It can still be done, but again, through proper channels.

Then change the constitution and convince everyone that under a scenario where the president is alerted that we have interecepted a call from OBL to a phone with a USA area code it is in our national security interest to require him to draw up the papers and submit them to a judge to get a warrant.

The fact is the courts have already ruled he doesn't have to.

See the OpinionJournal today for a very well written article laying out the court rulings and the applicable law.

"The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power.""

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007703

It's high time the Democrats shut-up with their lies and accusations that only split our country apart and it's time the stop doing everything in their power to make us lose this war so they can blame the opposition and regain power.

 

[Caine]

Picture this:

Marines in Iraq just acquired phone records from the home of a terrorist in Iraq. The records show 12 very recent, two-minute calls, placed closely together and to a number that traces back to a young, Arab, Muslim man in Brooklyn who has been in America for 6 months on a student Visa. He lives alone and has been working at a laundromat, yet he has an account with $40,000 in it that receives monthly deposits of $5,000 from a bank account in Saudi Arabia linked to the terror cell in Iraq.

This guy is your stereotypical terrorist.

If the people who are crucifying President Bush for authorizing monitoring of international calls to terror suspects in America, and who are opposing the Patriot Act have their way, the federal government could not listen to the phone calls coming from Iraq to this highly suspicious immigrant, and the courts would dramatically slow their investigative efforts down.

Two Things to Say on This:
1. Monitoring by the Regulations that are ALREADY in place = Good, Great, Go get 'em tiger.
2. Monitoring when you want to without going through the "secret" court of FISA to get a warrant, which is allowed even 72 hours AFTER they have started Monitoring = Bad.

You are intentionally twisting the criticism into "Democrats don't want us to take measures to protect our Country!!!! SCREAM BLOODY MURDER!!! ARGG!"
They want to use these measures, HOWEVER, they don't want the President to authorize operations unchecked by the systems put in place.

The Patriot Act......Nobody is trying to abolish the patriot act, I think the Democratic Senators in the Senate made that VERY clear today (Dec 20) when they even had a big ass board that says: "Patriot Act: Extend it, Don't End it." You on the other hand, continue to blindly follow the word of the President who claims that people are trying to get rid of the Patriot Act, in an attempt to scare people into disliking the Democrats for "putting our nation at risk", its obvious by your comments that this tactic is working wonders for those who cannot think freely.

When deciding whether or not to support the renewal of the Patriot Act or not, it is important to realize a few things.

If you side against it, with the McCain anti-torture amendment or not, you are also siding against roving wire taps (removing these from the game would put counterterrorism efforts back into the Stone Age); you are also siding against the removal of judicial red tape that, since the Patriot Act was first enacted, has kept the FBI from having to gather the same level of compelling evidence against terror suspects as common criminals to justify searches and detainments-In other words, the Patriot Act keeps us from having to get a traditional search warrant for someone who may be headed to a football stadium to detonate a bomb; you would also have to side against middle America in its entirety to vote against the Patriot Act.

Do FOREIGN terror suspects REALLY have any Constitutional rights? Especially a Constitutional right to privacy which can’t even be found mentioned for AMERICANS anywhere in the Constitution?

Democrats are just dead wrong on this, and thank God middle America doesn't go in for all this "Stalin all over again" hysteria being used to discourage us from defending ourselves with common sense security measures.

As already stated, Democrats in no way wish to abolish the Patriot Act, do some research on the views of the people you are acusing before blindly following the words of Republicans and Presidnet Bush who would have you believe this false accusation.
Go do some reasearch, Democrats have never once been against the Patriot Act, they just wish to extend it, and actually go through and attempt to determine what is required and what is not necessary. This has been a Bi-Partisan view on the issue. Do some Research.

 

[Stinger]

Re: Bush Authorized NSA To Spy Inside US On Citizens

What "experts" did you listen to?

Of course the President has the right to ask for wiretaps, but, as outlined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), he needs to have judicial approval. He can, in emergency circumstances, ask for judicial approval after the fact. Bush did neither.

FISA does not trump the consitution

>>The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007703

I highly suggest your read the entire article as it will enlighten you to the false statements alot of politicians and reporters who have no idea what they are talking about are saying.

Below is a link to the "Use of Force Resolution, and I see no clause that legally allows Bush to bypass FISA.

He doesn't have to have a law that "allows" him to bypass FISA, FISA cannot constrain his constitutional authority.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/terroristattack/joint-resolution_9-14.html

My man Russ Feingold is on the case:

Mr. Feingold should shut-up until he knows what he is talking about, talk such as his is dangerous in a time or war and needlessly splits this country apart.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121900211_2.html

 

[Stinger]

>>Democrats are just dead wrong on this, and thank God middle America doesn't go in for all this "Stalin all over again" hysteria being used to discourage us from defending ourselves with common sense security measures.<<

They are no only dead-wrong they are lying through their teeth and misrepresenting the law and purposely misleading the people. If this is not the final straw for the dangerous games they have been playing with our safety I don't know what will be.

 

[JustMyPOV]

>>Democrats are just dead wrong on this, and thank God middle America doesn't go in for all this "Stalin all over again" hysteria being used to discourage us from defending ourselves with common sense security measures.<<

They are no only dead-wrong they are lying through their teeth and misrepresenting the law and purposely misleading the people. If this is not the final straw for the dangerous games they have been playing with our safety I don't know what will be.

Yes, that's exactly what the GOP wants is for everyone who doesn't agree with them to "shut up", and don't you just wish it would happen? Then all of the problems that are becoming public in rapid-fire succession would just go away. Well, sorry to break this to you, but it simply isn't going to happen.

Firstly, FISA provides a rubber stamp for nearly every petition presented and allows for retroactive warrant applications to allow for emergency operations, and the law SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS TERRORISTS and their activities, so to say that it was not designed with terrorists in mind is a moot argument. The Supreme Court found against Nixon when Nixon used the same arguments for surveillance that was not authorized by the courts. The Supreme Court found UNANIMOUSLY that he DID NOT have that power.

Actual Supreme Court Decision

"These Fourth Amendment freedoms cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillances may be conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive [407 U.S. 297, 317] Branch. The Fourth Amendment does not contemplate the executive officers of Government as neutral and disinterested magistrates. Their duty and responsibility are to enforce the laws, to investigate, and to prosecute. Katz v. United States, supra, at 359-360 (DOUGLAS, J., concurring). But those charged with this investigative and prosecutorial duty should not be the sole judges of when to utilize constitutionally sensitive means in pursuing their tasks. The historical judgment, which the Fourth Amendment accepts, is that unreviewed executive discretion may yield too readily to pressures to obtain incriminating evidence and overlook potential invasions of privacy and protected speech."

So I guess us Democrats are all dead wrong along with this unanimous decision of the Supreme Court, eh?

 

[aps]

Yep. And I think you're reasoning is flawed. When you say...

...I think you're failing to recognize the difference between public rhetoric and private action, between speaking for public consumption versus revealing secret programs. The NSA surveillance program is/was secret. It was covert. You would have preferred the President to reveal a secret activity? (Then you must not have objected to the outing of Valerie Plame?) Moreover, he didn't lie: the wiretaps under FISA did/do require court orders.

oldreliable, please answer this question for me: Does a person who is under surveillance know that he/she is under surveillance?

If the answer is no, then please tell me what the difference is between announcing that wiretapping terrorists requires a court order and saying nothing about wiretapping? Why would he announce to the public/terrorists that we would be wiretapping with a court order?

 

[hipsterdufus]

Do any of the neo-con men think that the terrorists are so stupid that they don't know the US is spying on them?

The terrorists don't care whether we get judicial approval or not for surveillance.

This issue is about America and whether we are becoming more like the enemy that we are trying to defeat.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hmm.

Clinton, February 9, 1995:
"The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order to acquire foreign intelligence information "
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

Carter, May 23, 1979
"the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order"
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

I ask again:
Where was the uproar from the liberal democrats?

 

[JustMyPOV]

Hmm.

Clinton, February 9, 1995:
"The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order to acquire foreign intelligence information "
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

Carter, May 23, 1979
"the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order"
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

I ask again:
Where was the uproar from the liberal democrats?

Let's not cherry-pick those bits that support your argument and leave out the rest. The section of the EOs you're quoting from is worded as follows:

Clinton's:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section.

Carter's:
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General
is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order, but only if the
Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

Both of these presidents required that their Attorney General act within the confines of the FISA law, a very clear difference from what is being done now, which not only violates the FISA law, but circumvents the court process altogether.

 

[M14 Shooter]

if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section.[/B]

Whats your point? As long the AG does what he's supposed to do, its OK to search w/o a warrant?

How is that differen than now?

 

[Caine]

Whats your point? As long the AG does what he's supposed to do, its OK to search w/o a warrant?

How is that differen than now?

Your missing the point.

Bush KNEW he had to get a warrant.
But he didn't. He didn't have authorization to monitor without it.
That is the point.
The fact that he is doing it warrantless is only a concern because he did not have permission. In the above instances, rules were laid out concerning warrantless surveillance.

 

[oldreliable67]

Does a person who is under surveillance know that he/she is under surveillance?

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. For sure, now, thanks to the NYT, any bad actors in the US that are communicating with their counterparts overseas know that their communications are potentially compromised.

> Why FISA is not a complete solution to the problem: The FISA procedures are simply too slow. Even under the law's emergency "do it and then get approval"provisions, once the FBI learns about the need to intercept a phone conversation or email exchange, it takes at least a day -- often longer -- to obtain all the necessary approvals, including the signature of the attorney general.

But a delay of even an hour may have grave consequences. If NSA learns that OBL or an al Qaeda operative is using a satellite phone, the agency must listen in immediately; the opportunity might not present itself again. A delay of minutes could mean a critical piece of info is missed, or a terrorist may stop using that phone and use another phone.

> On the legality of the program: As we learn more about the background, it appears that the President did have legal precedent for the program. For example, according to a WSJ article this a.m.,

In proposing FISA to Congress in 1978, the Carter administration specifically stated that passage of the new law would not necessarily preclude the president from "using his powers granted under the Constitution to carry out foreign policy and intelligence activities," according to Griffin B. Bell, the attorney general when the law was drafted and enacted. There was a "tacit agreement that FISA was not intended to displace the president's authority," Mr. Bell told [the author of the article] earlier this week.

Citing that authority, the Bush administration disclosed the NSA intercept program at its inception to congressional leaders, the FISA court and NSA's inspector general. In addition, Mr. Bush set up a Justice Department review process, which retroactively examines the intercepts to ensure that the program is being carried out according to the terms of the president's authorization.

The President appears to believe that he was within the rights granted him by the Constitution, and exercised powers specifically reserved for the President. Nonetheless that precedent has thus far remained untested by the courts. If subsequent congressional hearings should result in referrals to the DoJ, then so be it.

Back to the criticism of Bush's "wiretapping requires a court order" comment: given a choice of between avoiding the wrath of the media and congressional critics and preventing an attack that could kill god-only-knows how many Americans, what would you do?

Hopefully, you would do the same thing Bush did: truthfully describe a known, existing program and avoid disclosing the existence of a then-secret program that is producing intel that is saving lives.

 

[aps]

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. For sure, now, thanks to the NYT, any bad actors in the US that are communicating with their counterparts overseas know that their communications are potentially compromised.

In his April 20, 2004, speech, he publicly announced that he would wiretap to "chase down terrorists." So they were put on notice that the US would possibly be wiretapping their communications with their counterparts overseas. How is his statement any different than the NYT's disclosure?

That's an interesting take from the WSJ. Thanks for posting it.

 

[oldreliable67]

How is his statement any different than the NYT's disclosure?

Significantly different, IMO. In his 2004 comments, Bush said nothing that wasn't already publicly known - FISA and its provisions were certainly were/are well known. The NYT article disclosed a classified, highly secret operation.

 

[aquapub]

When a terrorist in Iraq is making phone calls to a young Arab, Muslim immigrant living beyond his means in Brooklyn, on a student visa, WE’D BETTER be able to listen to those phone calls.

The fact that Democrats oppose common sense national security moves like this and the Patriot Act is how liberals get branded as traitors. When those who know what is going on in the war against terror look at the political spectrum, they see Republicans giving them what they need to fight and win, and they see Democrats systematically stepping in the way of every single thing they do to protect this country. When they try to reconcile why Democrats always seem to want us to fight with both hands tied behind our backs, all they get is preaching about civil liberties. Isn’t the right to not be murdered greater than the right to privacy? At least the right to live can even be found in the Constitution. Privacy is a fiction. The “civil liberties for foreign terrorists” arguments just don’t sell.

So why DO liberals step in and defend the Taliban, Saddam, Castro, and every American enemy since Ho Chi Minh? Calling liberals treasonous is not a tactic. It is a common belief among patriotic citizens in this country.



And Caine, I am not basing my view of Democrats on the president's words at all as you assume. I am basing them on the words of Democrats I have listened to ever since the Patriot Act was first mentioned. Many, many Democrats are on the record calling the legislation a travesty of justice and other hysterical nonsense. Like Kerry in 2004, they cannot reinvent their way out of their own words.

And there is already all the judicial oversight their needs to be.




And Hipsterdufus, this is not about whether or not the terrorists care about us surveilling them. It is about whether we can stop them or not. And listening to phone calls from known foreign terrorists to possible sleeper cells in this country is NOT making us like our enemies. That's just nonsense

 

[Caine]

When a terrorist in Iraq is making phone calls to a young Arab, Muslim immigrant living beyond his means in Brooklyn, on a student visa, WE’D BETTER be able to listen to those phone calls.

The fact that Democrats oppose common sense national security moves like this and the Patriot Act is how liberals get branded as traitors. When those who know what is going on in the war against terror look at the political spectrum, they see Republicans giving them what they need to fight and win, and they see Democrats systematically stepping in the way of every single thing they do to protect this country. When they try to reconcile why Democrats always seem to want us to fight with both hands tied behind our backs, all they get is preaching about civil liberties. Isn’t the right to not be murdered greater than the right to privacy? At least the right to live can even be found in the Constitution. Privacy is a fiction. The “civil liberties for foreign terrorists” arguments just don’t sell.

So why DO liberals step in and defend the Taliban, Saddam, Castro, and every American enemy since Ho Chi Minh? Calling liberals treasonous is not a tactic. It is a common belief among patriotic citizens in this country.



And Caine, I am not basing my view of Democrats on the president's words at all as you assume. I am basing them on the words of Democrats I have listened to ever since the Patriot Act was first mentioned. Many, many Democrats are on the record calling the legislation a travesty of justice and other hysterical nonsense. Like Kerry in 2004, they cannot reinvent their way out of their own words.

And there is already all the judicial oversight their needs to be.

It is a travesty of injustice, AS IT IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN.
Just because they don't like the Patriot Act, doesn't mean that they don't understand that alot of the powers given by the Patriot Act are required.
They are all for reforming and re-writing the Patriot Act after they have been given time to actually debate it, since it was passed alot with alot of other legislation during the panic of post 9/11. There are even Republicans who want to extend it and reform it. Are you calling them traitors too?
In our current situation, people who obviously (dont know how to read for one) can't see past the bullshit and see the truth aren't the real patriots. Did you do any research on what the Democrats actually think? Or are you still making your own conclusions? Have you bothered to watch CSPAN2 while the Senate was in session? The Democrats CLEARLY stated, as they have in the past, that they wish to extend the patriot act in order to reform it.

Until you go do some research and find out what you are talking about I will continue to ridicule your uninformed Republican rhetoric.