Patriot Act Extension Fails! - UPDATED

Breaking News:



The vote was 277-148. With a two-thirds vote necessary, 290 votes were needed to pass the legislation. Welcome, Tea Party, to the fractured GOP. More to follow.

UPDATE (2/9/11): From Raw Story:

The House voted 277 to 148 for the PATRIOT Act extension... short of the two-thirds majority needed to pass it under a procedure that allows bills that aren't controversial to pass quickly.

But it appears the bill was controversial enough to convince some two dozen tea party-backed Republican freshmen to join a majority of Democrats in voting against it, The Hill reported.

Now here's the bad news.

The measure is now expected to return to the House floor for a regular vote that would require a simple majority to pass. If House members vote then as they did Tuesday, the extension will pass easily.

Does Congress Know What It Votes On?

When the Patriot Act was introduced in Congress at the height of terrorist fears after 9/11, Congress hastily signed it into law without so much as thoroughly reading the 300 page document. You'd think they would have learned their lesson.

NY Times: Broad new surveillance powers approved by Congress this month could allow the Bush administration to conduct spy operations that go well beyond wiretapping to include — without court approval — certain types of physical searches on American soil and the collection of Americans’ business records...

...“This shows why it is so risky to change the law by changing the definition” of something as basic as the meaning of electronic surveillance, said Suzanne Spaulding, a former Congressional staff member who is now a national security legal expert. “You end up with a broad range of consequences that you might not realize.”

...The legislation gives the director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell, and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales broad discretion in enacting the new procedures and approving the way surveillance is conducted.

Although the mistake was initially made, Congress will seek to revise the surveillance legislation as soon as it returns from recess, even though it is only valid for six months. Administration officials said that "the Democrats were simply raising theoretical questions based on a harsh interpretation of the legislation."

Well, can you blame them? Even if the intent were pure, this administration has shown time and time again that when they have a choice to make, they will invariably take the low road when it comes to these types of matters.

There should never be any sort of rush when enacting any laws, especially those infringing on civil rights and liberties. I wonder when Congressional leaders will actually begin reading what they sign? It's akin to signing contracts with small print loopholes and getting screwed over and over again.

Bush's Distortions, Delusions and Distractions

BUSH: “The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq,” he said, “were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that’s why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home.”

Here's my assessment on that quote: BULLSHIT.

The Al-Qaeda fear card is coming up more and more frequently as Bush gets further away from reality and the administration sits in their bunker trying to figure out how to salvage what little left there is to their pathetic term in office. The more they realize that the GOP will probably get a "whoopin'" again in 2008, the more they use fear and the threat of terror to try to justify their debacle in Iraq.

As Bob Woodward reports, even CIA Director Michael V. Hayden catalogued what he saw as the main sources of violence [for the Iraq Study Group] in this order: the insurgency, sectarian strife, criminality, general anarchy and, lastly, al-Qaeda. Though Hayden had listed al-Qaeda as the fifth most pressing threat in Iraq, Bush regularly lists al-Qaeda first.

Even "general anarchy" is ahead of al-Qaeda in his assessment of the situation. But the more trouble the administration gets into, the more they shout "al-Qaeda". Just this week, Harriet Meirs, on advice from the White House, disregarded a subpoena from the Senate Judiciary Committee and decided not to show up. ...AL-QAEDA!!!

"I can't fathom a private citizen getting a subpoena to come before this body and not showing up," said Rep. Stephen I. Cohen, a Tennessee Democrat. "What we've got here is an empty chair. I mean, that is as contemptuous as anybody can be of the government, of the process, of the country."

But will she be charged with contempt of Congress and arrested like any other "private citizen"? I'm guessing the answer is a big, fat NO. ... AL-QAEDA!!!

At least Sara M. Taylor, the former White House Political Director showed up in person to spit in the face of the committee: "I have a very clear letter from Mr. Fielding," Taylor began at 10:40 a.m., pointing to the letter from White House Counsel Fred Fielding that has "directed" Taylor not to testify about internal deliberations and external communications while she worked in the West Wing.

She finally did start answering some questions after she was reminded by Chairman Senator Leahy what sort of questions she could and couldn't answer. And her answers proved that either she is one of the "loyal Bushies" that Kyle Sampson categorized, or that her mind is just as full of holes as Alberto Gonzales'.

Speaking of Gonzales, Dahlia Lithwick from Slate.com reports, "In April 2005, Gonzales testified before the Senate that "there has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse" as a consequence of expanded FBI powers under the Patriot Act. We now learn that at the time, he was in possession of at least six FBI reports detailing unlawful surveillance, searches, and improper use of national security letters. It's tempting to write off Gonzales' failure to admit to these numerous abuses as yet another punch line. "Ooopsy. Lied again." Heh heh. Shrug. But at least grant that Gonzales' buffoonery serves a larger Bush administration purpose. His dereliction of duty takes our minds off the real story: the extent of the damage he and Bush have done to the Justice Department in a few short years.

...It's difficult to ascertain the precise moment in the Bush administration in which confessing not to have been doing one's job at all became the best defense against the claim that one did one's job badly. But given the choice between admitting to perjury or incompetence, you can bet that Gonzales will easily, indeed gleefully, cop to the latter."

It just doesn't stop... AL-QAEDA!!!

The Plot Thins

I must admit, when I first heard of the foiled plot to bomb New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport, with calls coming from different parts of the country to "see if I was alright", I thought to myself, "You've got to be kidding." I didn't even know about said plot until those calls actually came. But being the cynic that the Bush administration has made me, my first response was, "Thank God... the Republicans saved our lives..."

So imagine my complete expectation just four days after the announcement of the supposed plot, word that the credibility of the terror case was suspect in the first place. Really? Nah...

This from New York Newsday on June 6th:

When U.S. Attorney Roslynn Mauskopf described the alleged terror plot to blow up Kennedy Airport as "one of the most chilling plots imaginable," which might have caused "unthinkable" devastation, one law enforcement official said he cringed. The plot, he knew, was never operational. The public had never been at risk. And the notion of blowing up the airport, let alone the borough of Queens, by exploding a fuel tank was in all likelihood a technical impossibility.

And now, with a portrait emerging of alleged mastermind Russell Defreitas as hapless and episodically homeless, and of co-conspirator Abdel Nur as a drug addict, Mauskopf's initial characterizations seem more questionable -- some go so far as to say hyped.

"I think her comments were over the top," said Michael Greenberger, director of the Center for Health and Homeland Security at the University of Maryland. "It was a totally overstated characterization that doesn't comport with the facts."

Greenberger said he has no argument with police pursuing and stopping the alleged plotters."I think they were correct to take this seriously," he said. "... But there's a pattern here of Justice Department attorneys overstating what they have. I think they feel under tremendous pressure to vindicate the elaborate counterterrorism structure they've created since 9/11, including the Patriot Act."

Here is fear mongering at its best. Gone are the days of orange terror alerts. Remember those halcion days? Color coded terror alerts went the way of the circular file when people figured out that anytime Republicans were slipping in the polls during the 2004 election campaign, all they had to do was circle the wagons and tell the country we were at "high alert" orange. This way, everyone would hide in their shells and thank whoever they needed to for those "strong on defense" Republicans.

Don't misunderstand me. Anyone stupid enough to even begin thinking of something as ludicrous as plotting to blow up JFK should be arrested. At the very least it strengthens the gene pool.

But must we stop the presses every time we get a couple of wackos that amount to nothing in the "war of terror"? Do we have to cut to a live press conference to announce to the world that we were able to apprehend a homeless man from Trinidad and a drug addict from Guyana because they hatred of our freedom, and now we're all the safer because of it? Is the government that desperate that they must hold these pathetic souls up as proof to try and convince us that the war of terror is working? Don't answer that last question, it was rhetorical.

But it doesn't end there. Rudy Giuliani, in his zeal to show he's the saviour of our time, gloms on to this plot at the latest Republican Debate and uses it as an example that we "have to fight them over there so we don't fight them here."

Earth to Rudy: Are we to start wars against Guyana and Trinidad as well? I'll bring the tequila. How about the Timothy McVeighs of the country, Rudy? Where do we fight them?

And then there's poor (billionaire) and current New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who took my attitude about the whole JFK fiasco:
"There are lots of threats to you in the world. There's the threat of a heart attack for genetic reasons. You can't sit there and worry about everything. Get a life," he said. "You have a much greater danger of being hit by lightning than being struck by a terrorist," he added.

Good for Mike! I'm sure he's going to receive tons of criticism, but at least he spoke out and didn't follow the rest of the sheeple. Of course, with talk like that, I don't know how much longer he'll be a Republican.

Alberto is Gonzo!

While I'm in the middle of trashing Alberto "Torture Boy" Gonzales, let us not forget that over the last few weeks, the Bush Administration has been firing federal prosecutors. Gonzales has been filling these positions with... you guessed it, more Bush cronies. And due to a provision in the Patriot Act, these interim attorneys are indefinite appointments. No confirmation process necessary. How convenient!

Here's Jack Cafferty on the subject.

Thanks to "psalm54" at YouTube for the video alert.