Patriot Act extended-YES!!!

[SLO-BOB]

[RoninLB]

"Instead, what we have is a kind of antiterror version of France's pre-World War II Maginot Line; an expensive, highly visible static defense against a nimble adversary. Congress loves it because it offers the chance to throw money at domestic constituencies, and liberals love it because it allows them to sound hawkish on terror without having to fire a shot. The rest of us, however, need to be realistic about its abilities.

This is especially the case as Congress becomes increasingly unserious about the domestic threat. It says something about the current state of play that Mr. Bush must now profess gratitude to Congress for graciously agreeing to a one-month extension of the USA Patriot Act, which in 2001 passed the Senate 98-1. Even more unserious has been the political posturing and mock horror that followed this month's revelations of the National Security Agency's warrantless phone intercepts. It's refreshing to know that 64% of Americans, according to a recent Rasmussen poll, approve of the eavesdropping, not that we ever had doubts about the seriousness with which the American people take the terrorist threat. It's the seriousness of American elites that concerns us.

Not the least of the ironies in the current debate on homeland security is that many of the same people who oppose the war in Iraq also oppose renewal of the Patriot Act and other domestic counterterrorist tools. That is, they are as opposed to going on offense in the war on terror as they are against playing defense. But the war on terror is not a game the U.S. can opt out of. There is a great deal that can be done to improve homeland security -- and to improve the department that bears that name. But it won't count for much if we aren't clear about the choices we face."

[SLO-BOB]

[on-ramp]

don't worry, if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem?

(has the sarcasm meter been implemented yet?)

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by Sebring77
. I believe our "war on terror" resources could be better spent elsewhere.

I also believe that there are better ways to insure homeland security than goose stepping over the Bill of Rights.

meaning you think there is a more efficient way to battle the war ?

The Dept of Homeland Security was instigated because of beltway Dems.

[SLO-BOB]

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose


Clinton 1998 indictment of Usama Bin Laden:

"Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

Lee Hamilton, DemoRAT(9-11 Commission):

Lee Hamilton, the former Democratic congressman who is the commission's vice chairman, said: "The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections between Al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein government. We don't disagree with that. What we have said is what the governor (Commission Chairman Thomas Kean) just said, we don't have any evidence of a cooperative, or a corroborative, relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and these Al Qaeda operatives with regard to the attacks on the United States."

More on connections:

Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.

According to the memo--which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points--Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source. This reporting is often followed by commentary and analysis.
WeeklyStandard (stop Pat!...the messenger is unimportant!)

[911pcars]

Being able to revise the constitution and bypass US laws in the name of "war" creates a slippery slope from which it could be difficult to reverse. The ramifications of giving up your liberties has been discussed before. People have to think beyond, "That doesn't affect me. It's only the bad guys that have their rights abridged - no biggie."

As we speak, the administration is putting on the full-court press on who leaked the news about the NSA's policy on domestic eavesdropping. Basically, they're searching for the whistle-blower(s); those who report laws being broken. MHO, the administration has their priorities sorta screwed.

Reportedly, getting a court order to eavesdrop is not a big deal, even after the fact. That they chose to ignore the process shows a total lack of concern for the law. I expect both sides of Congress will have something to say about this.

Sherwood

[fastpat]

Originally posted by 911pcars
Being able to revise the constitution and bypass US laws in the name of "war" creates a slippery slope from which it could be difficult to reverse. The ramifications of giving up your liberties has been discussed before. People have to think beyond, "That doesn't affect me. It's only the bad guys that have their rights abridged - no biggie."

As we speak, the administration is putting on the full-court press on who leaked the news about the NSA's policy on domestic eavesdropping. Basically, they're searching for the whistle-blower(s); those who report laws being broken. MHO, the administration has their priorities sorta screwed.

Reportedly, getting a court order to eavesdrop is not a big deal, even after the fact. That they chose to ignore the process shows a total lack of concern for the law. I expect both sides of Congress will have something to say about this.

Sherwood

Wait until some of these armchair generals find out the gun confiscation provisions and the turn over of BATF forms from gun dealers to the FBI database, now used for the National Instant Check System. Maybe they don't care, after all, we (meaning young 20-something surrogates) are at war.

[SLO-BOB]

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Sebring77
The ties between Al-Queda and Iraq seem weak and sporradic.

Um, you mean like random and insignificant? And not worth 2,500 American lives?

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by Sebring77
I'm not saying Iraq was a bunch of fun lovin' guys who were wrongfully persecuted. What I am saying is there are bigger fish to fry out there.

, I feel we should have focused our resources on countries that have a more direct threat against the U.S. than Iraq.

ditto

and Iran may become the big issue of 2006?

[SLO-BOB]

[fastpat]

Originally posted by RoninLB
ditto

and Iran may become the big issue of 2006?

Let's see, Iraq is about half the size of Iran with one third the population and is deeply multi-ethnic and they're kicking the US governments ass everyday.

Hmmm, need to ask the obvious question. Invading Iran, good idea or bad?

Maybe we can point Bush due south, after all, it's Mexico that's invading and assaulting America; no one in the middle east is.