Patriot Act Section 215

Who Are We at War With? Sorry, That’s “Classified”

by

You’d think that a nation that has allowed the shredding of the civil liberties enshrined in its founding document might deserve to know who the dastardly enemy is to justify such a dramatic transgression, right? Wrong. Amazingly, Carl Levin (D-Michigan) asked the Pentagon to define who exactly the “Al-Qaeda affiliates” we are at war with are. While Mr. Levin received and answer, guess what he told the public? Yep, you guessed it. It’s classified.

From ProPublica:

In a major national security speech this spring, President Obama said again and again that the U.S. is at war with “Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces.”

So who exactly are those associated forces? It’s a secret.

At a hearing in May, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., asked the Defense Department to provide him with a current list of Al Qaeda affiliates.

The Pentagon responded – but Levin’s office told ProPublica they aren’t allowed to share it. Kathleen Long, a spokeswoman for Levin, would say only that the department’s “answer included the information requested.”

A Pentagon spokesman told ProPublica that revealing such a list could cause “serious damage to national security.”

There’s that “national security” line again.

“Because elements that might be considered ‘associated forces’ can build credibility by being listed as such by the United States, we have classified the list,” said the spokesman, Lt. Col. Jim Gregory. “We cannot afford to inflate these organizations that rely on violent extremist ideology to strengthen their ranks.”

Read more

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

Meet Two of the Biggest Hypocrites in Congress

by

Back in 2005, Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois) was up in arms about the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. So much so that she issued a press release to highlight her opposition within the House of Representatives. In it she stated:

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky, Chief Deputy Whip, delivered a statement in the House of Representatives urging her colleagues to vote against the reauthorization of the Patriot Act.  Representative Schakowsky has continually fought to limit the expansive new powers the Patriot Act grants federal agencies such as allowing them to secretly search personal records, including medical and library records, and permitting law enforcement officers to install roving wiretaps without specifying a suspect or telephone.

“Mr. Speaker, I voted against the PATRIOT Act four years ago and I remain opposed to it.  While I support a number of the tools the PATRIOT Act grants to law enforcement in the fight to combat terrorism, it went too far in eroding important civil liberties, limiting the right to due process, and unnecessarily targeting immigrants.” 

“The Constitution that I carry is not a Republican document, it’s not a Democratic document, it’s an American document that we want to preserve.  The PATRIOT Act is an affront to our civil rights and civil liberties, as guaranteed by our Constitution.”

Oh yeah, you tell ’em sister! Interesting language, because it seems pretty obvious that you see things entirely in partisan terms. While you voted against the Patriot Act in 2001, it has now become abundantly clear that you would have voted in favor of it with a smile if your lord and savior Barack Obama had been in office at the time. Just like you voted NO on the Amash amendment yesterday. I haven’t seen a statement from your office on that vote yet, but I look forward to it.

Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland) was equally outraged back in 2005 over the Patriot Act. He also issued a statement at the time. Here are some choice excerpts:

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

Congressman: Did You Think This Program Could be Indefinitely Kept Secret from the American People? Government Attorney: “Well we Tried”

by

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), the chairman of the committee, said he was surprised that the programs had been kept secret for so long.

“Do you think a program of this magnitude gathering information involving a large number of people involved with telephone companies could be indefinitely kept secret from the American people?” Goodlatte asked.

“Well,” ODNI general counsel Robert S. Litt said with a slight smile, “we tried.”

– From a Washington Post article yesterday

The backlash in Congress against the government’s monstrous spy program and the ridiculous notion that a secret court (the FISA court) grants any sort of oversight is growing, and it is a bipartisan effort. More from the Washington Post:

Lawmakers of both parties expressed deep skepticism Wednesday about the government’s bulk collection of Americans’ telephone records and threatened not to renew the legislative authority that has been used to sanction a program described as “off the tracks legally.”

“This is unsustainable, it’s outrageous and must be stopped immediately,” said Rep. John Con­yers Jr. (Mich.), the highest-ranking Democrat on the panel.

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) — who sponsored the USA Patriot Act, which ostensibly authorized the collection — warned that the House might not renew Section 215 of the act, a key provision that gives the government its authority.

“You’ve got to change how you operate 215. . . or you’re not going to have it anymore,” Sensenbrenner said.

When the sponsor of the Patriot Act says it’s gone too far, you know you are in totalitarian territory.

Read more

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.