Frist changed his vote at the last moment after seeing the critics would win. He decided to vote with the prevailing side so he could call for a new vote at any time. He immediately objected to an offer of a short term extension from Democrats, saying the House won't approve it and the president won't sign it.
So does that mean that Frist voted for the Patriot Act then voted against it and at some future date plans to vote for it again?
Flip-flop-flip?
Or more simply, he's playing politics with national security. He doesn't want the country to do without the protections of the Patriot Act for one day but he is willing to let the country be without the protections of the Patriot Act because he refuses to vote for a Democratic proposal to extend it? Is that what he said?
Posted by snark at December 16, 2005 10:42 AMThis is the GOP/GWB first loss and DEM win in the Senate. Now if only the Democrats would keep hammering on the NSA and Pentagon spying until the whole country gets it.
Posted by Marie at December 16, 2005 10:51 AMO frabous day! Callooh! Callooay!
Posted by the Robot Vegetable at December 16, 2005 11:09 AMDid someone left ROOF out without his meds again?
Posted by pessimist at December 16, 2005 11:16 AMoops, in my glee I forgot to give proper credit:
And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
...the New York Times finally released a story they have been sitting on for a year about Bush authorizing the NSA to illegally monitor the communications of American citizens...Steve SotoI realize that the New York Times doesn't think its readers have a right to factual information as opposed to RNC spin, but isn't Bush's act itself, like, illegal?
Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies at George Washington University, said the secret order may amount to the president authorizing criminal activity.
The law governing clandestine surveillance in the United States, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, prohibits conducting electronic surveillance not authorized by statute. A government agent can try to avoid prosecution if he can show he was "engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction," according to the law.
"This is as shocking a revelation as we have ever seen from the Bush administration," said Martin, who has been sharply critical of the administration's surveillance and detention policies. "It is, I believe, the first time a president has authorized government agencies to violate a specific criminal prohibition and eavesdrop on Americans."
russ feingold, ahead of his time. bravo!
Posted by benjoya at December 16, 2005 11:53 AMGo Russ Go!
My hat's off to the Left Coaster for noting that the libertarian wing of the GOP can fight back.
I staunchly maintain that our country has three main competing philosophies - Progressive, Libertarian and Authoritarian. It is high time the strange-bedfellow Libertarian/Authoritarian Republican alliance be broken.
Despite their differences, Progressive and Libertarians can work together to defeat Authoritarians like W and his administration.
Posted by Liveliest Crib at December 16, 2005 12:29 PMagreed Liveliest Crib
Posted by John B. at December 16, 2005 12:44 PMDitto!
Posted by pessimist at December 16, 2005 12:52 PMSo Pinch or Punch or Puke Sulzburger over at the NYT is just another Bu$hCo rimjobber. Not too surprised, really.
Posted by Red_Neck_Repub at December 16, 2005 01:26 PMYou know what would be great? It would be great if the angry-lefties here and on sites like the Huffington Post would say something like this:
"Yeah, Kerry didn't run the greatest campaign, but if the mainstream media, including the New York Times, had done its job, there's little doubt that Kerry would be president."
Seriously, how come everyone piles on Kerry for losing as if he ran the race in a vacuum? What would the political terrain have been like if the press - and I mean real reporters, not Bob Fucking Woodward - had run with the stories they had, or asked the questions of the Bush administration that needed asking?
The NYT had this for a year? Did they have it BEFORE the 2004 election? What else are they sitting on? And what else were they sitting on then?
Posted by Manzilla at December 16, 2005 01:47 PM"Yeah, Kerry didn't run the greatest campaign, but if the mainstream media, including the New York Times, had done its job, there's little doubt that Kerry would be president."
I say this all the time.
Posted by dj moonbat at December 16, 2005 02:33 PMMy question is:has some criminal act been committed, in spying on Americans?
Posted by Kevin at December 16, 2005 04:38 PMIt's tough to say. There may well be a cause of action for violation of constitutional rights available to those surveilled, though.
Posted by dj moonbat at December 16, 2005 05:17 PMThe NY Times sat on this for over a year? Damn that liberal media!
Posted by ann at December 16, 2005 05:28 PMMy question is:has some criminal act been committed, in spying on Americans?
Oh, just our right to privacy.
Posted by ann at December 16, 2005 05:32 PMIf it's true that Bush ordered NSA spying without even trying to go through emergency procedures, or without ever bothering or even considering to get some kind of arrangement with courts or congress, that is V BIG deal. It means he did it just cause he wanted to set precedent that he could do anything he darn well wanted to do because we are now at permanent war -I don't know that congress ever declared a permanent state of war, but president thinks we are in one, so we are, I guess. Sounds like he's been brooding over the idea that things would be soooo much easier in every way if he were dictator.
One method Bush admin didn;t mention of congress countermanding president is impeachment and conviction, and removal from office. Odd that they forget that one, huh?
On Patriot act, Dems need to emphasize that they were willing to deal, to allow reasonable extension on existing law, to reach a compromise. Bush and his thugs decided to risk both national security and constitutional rights by playing chicken with temporary extension of existing law. There should be nationwide saturation TV ad campaing about it starting tomorrow. Just need Reid and Pelosi reading short statement, or something like that.
Posted by anon at December 16, 2005 06:24 PMThis activity is ongoing.Who will demand that it end?
Posted by Kevin at December 16, 2005 06:33 PMApparently, according to BBC article, the ACLU is demanding that it will end. They have called on Congress to demand that this is investigated and dealt with. The Senate will hold hearings, Specter is pissed; the House, however, that is stacked with WH Bitches, will only do what the WH wants - no matter how loud the Dems scream that oversight needs to happen.
Posted by Anjha at December 16, 2005 07:02 PMIf Bush stopped it without a fight,wouldn't he almost be admiting blame,or guilt?
Posted by Kevin at December 16, 2005 07:15 PMPlease God! This has to be worse than getting a BJ. Impeach the dumb fuck.
Posted by hufNpuf at December 16, 2005 08:01 PMTonight on the News Hour, Bush said he acted within the law. And perhaps he believes that -- after all, he was told by John Yoo and Alberto Gonzales that whatever he did regarding national security would be legal just because he decided it was okay.
John Yoo's theory: the only check on the president's power is his own underdeveloped sense of self-restraint. The president need only incant the phrase "national security" and all legal constraints fall.
No wonder Bush can say with a straight face that he operates within the law - he believes he has the ultimate power to say what is legal. Nice trick, huh?
Posted by Mary at December 16, 2005 09:55 PMThe one simple concept that some Americans have never understood is that in giving up one single privacy right, they are giving up all privacy rights.
The term Watergate reflects exactly what is happening today in the Bush Administration. Nixon spied on Americans for the same reasons Bush is spying on Americans, created an Enemy List just as Bush has created a list of those who oppose him, and believed that he was above the law just as Bush believes he is above the law.
The following words are from: http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/water.htm
Insert the name Bush where ever you see Nixon. "Watergate" is now an all-encompassing term used to refer to:
1. political burglary
2. bribery
3. extortion
4. wiretapping (phone tapping)
5. conspiracy
6. obstruction of justice
7. destruction of evidence
8. tax fraud
9. illegal use of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA.)
10. illegal use of the Federal Bureau of Investigations
(FBI.)
11. illegal campaign contributions
12. use of public (taxpayers') money for private purposes
These Watergate crimes began from the moment President Nixon took office and continued until he was forced to resign the Presidency in August 1974. The larger question we must now ask is what would the President of the United States and his top advisors engage in the above list of crimes. As some of my students pointed out, these crimes are usually associated with organized crime and criminal conspiracies. Why in the late 1960s and early 1970s, as David Frost asked Nixon, "did it go so rotten so fast."
The answer lies in Nixon's confusion between himself, the office of the Presidency, and the United States. Upon taking office, Nixon promised himself he would not let the anti-war movement and critics of the government undermine his Presidency as they had President Johnson's. Nixon believed that because he was elected President he knew what was best for the nation. Anyone who hated him, who challenged his policies, who questioned his leadership was therefore a threat to the nation. Nixon believed because he as President represented the United States, anyone challenged him was thus a threat to the nation. Nixon confused people's dislike of him and his Presidency with disloyalty to the nation; he confused personal threats to his own self-esteem with threats to the Nation's health. Nixon concluded because he was the President, anyone who challenged him was a threat to the nation and he could use the power of the government to crush his enemies. One of Nixon's top aides put it this way:
"It didn't matter who you were or what ideological positions you took. You were either for us or against us, and you were against us we were against you."
The crimes of Watergate were thus committed because Nixon confused his self and his Presidency with the nation. But by concluding that disloyalty to Nixon was disloyalty to the nation, President Nixon threatened to become, as Schell agues, a dictator, undermining the basic rights and freedom that Americans have to shape and control their government and their society.
Articles of Impeachment of President Nixon:
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/nixon.htm
Posted by Judith at December 17, 2005 12:32 AMI wonder, if in Bush's arrogance, he uses tape recordings in the Oval Office.
Posted by Judith at December 17, 2005 12:37 AMAs most are likely aware by now, Bushco's action is in violation of a 1978 federal law prohibiting executive branch wiretapping, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
What will result from all this?
John Yoo, who reportedly wrote the Justice Department memos approving this wiretapping, will almost certainly be nominated to the federal appeals court for the ninth circuit.
And the Republican Senate will happily confirm him.
That's how our republic now operates.
Posted by euzoius at December 17, 2005 08:14 PM