December 8, 2005


House, Senate reach deal on renewing Patriot Act (Associated Press, December 8, 2005)

House and Senate negotiators reached an agreement Thursday to extend the USA Patriot Act, the government's premier anti-terrorism law, before it expires at the end of the month. But a Democratic senator threatened a filibuster to block the compromise.

"I will do everything I can, including a filibuster, to stop this Patriot Act conference report, which does not include adequate safeguards to protect our constitutional freedoms,'' said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who was the only senator to vote against the original version of the Patriot Act. [...]

Also to be extended for four years are standards for monitoring "lone wolf'' terrorists who may be operating independent of a foreign agent or power. While not part of the Patriot Act, officials considered that along with the Patriot Act provisions.

The Republican-controlled House had been pushing for those provisions to stay in effect as long as a decade, but negotiators decided to go with the GOP-controlled Senate's suggestion.

Most of the Patriot Act would become permanent under the reauthorization.

The White House applauded the agreement.

Even Karl Rove can't have enough control of Democrat brains to force them to filibuster the Patriot Act.

Posted by Orrin Judd at December 8, 2005 2:17 PM

Fat lot of good it did in the Sami al-Arian trial.

Posted by: erp at December 8, 2005 2:24 PM

It's their glands that are dispositive, hence there is hope.

Posted by: Luciferous at December 8, 2005 2:27 PM

For the Democratic pretenders, this will be a tough vote (excepting Feingold, of course).

The war can be far away, but terrorism isn't. And Hillary has to vote for it (being from NY), so what will the pretenders do?

Posted by: jim hamlen at December 8, 2005 3:11 PM

Could it be possible that anyone is so besotted, so self-deluded, so like a left-wing Democrat as to not realize that the "anti-war" spirit of the 70's was nothing more or less than a rejection of the draft?

And not just this, that cowardice is no longer in service of treason. Something else has changed. The left has experienced enough power to dismantle or at least undermine the public understanding of civil liberties through its advancement of things like "hate crimes" legislation and persecution of thought which is not their thought.

Fools they were, not to think that the ways of thinking they sought to wield against their opponents could not be used against them or their clients.

Furthermore, they are up against an America that saw, as we did on live television, an airplane chrashed into our tallest building.

Posted by: Lou Gots at December 8, 2005 7:59 PM

There was no draft when they opposed winning the Cold War or now that they oppose winning the WoT. The draft is a canard.

Posted by: oj at December 8, 2005 8:03 PM

The big hole the PATH train runs through between West and Chruch streets in lower Manhattan is the main reason the left finds itself with so few followers when push comes to shove, but the absence of a draft does dilute the pool of potential 18-to-25 followers, whose parents (or even grandparents) were seething with anger during those 1960s protest marches until the draft was killed off and their personal stake in the whole thing was lowered.

Posted by: John at December 8, 2005 10:30 PM

"the draft is a canard"

Lou Gots has a valid point regarding the draft. They (i presume leftist in general) succeeded in opposition while the draft was in place, and have failed when it has been removed. At least that is the way I interpret Lou Gots' point. You are correct that they still act in opposition (but have met failure).

So "removal" of the Draft as an emotional issue to rally the public is not a canard. Or do you define canard as an argument that you find too difficult to dispute? If so you are correct, it's a canard.

Posted by: h-man at December 9, 2005 4:58 AM

The draft was gone when they withdrew support from South Vietnam and the Contras.

Posted by: oj at December 9, 2005 7:15 AM

Dude, Rove could control those brains with the joystick from an Atari system, circa 1978. This is Congress we're talking about.

Posted by: Mikey at December 9, 2005 8:22 AM

I think Lou Gots and h-man have a good point. Maybe the draft was gone when they deserted South Vietnam, but I'm sure a lot of folks didn't want to admit to themselves that the draft was the real reason they opposed the war. I remember the air going out of the anti-war "movement" once the lottery was done.

Posted by: jdkelly at December 9, 2005 8:58 AM

The craven politicians didn't care about the draft, but the protestors did. And absent Watergate, Congress could not have cut off South Vietnam.

The "popular" anti-war movement ended at Kent State. And with the other 'protest suppression', in Jacksonville if I remember correctly.

Posted by: jim hamlen at December 9, 2005 9:02 AM

Nixon and Kissinger would have gladly sold out the South.

Posted by: oj at December 9, 2005 9:07 AM

Regarding Kissinger, I'm sure you are right. Perhaps not with Nixon.

Posted by: jim hamlen at December 9, 2005 11:09 AM

The lie that was the "anti-war" movement survived the end of the draft,as it survives to this day for those who partook of it. The cowards and slackers who then lived the lie keep it alive for themselves.

How could they not do so? Should we expect them to look into the mirror each day and admit that they lied and plotted and betrayed so that someone else, being the next person on the draft list, would face danger and fatigue in their place?

Of course the lie about the Dolchstoss is repeated again and again, and it is only now fading as its speakers fade into infamy and newer generations view a world without the draft.

Posted by: Lou Gots at December 9, 2005 12:11 PM