Senate advances PATRIOT Act extension

posted at 1:06 pm on May 26, 2011 by Tina Korbe

By a cloture vote of 79 to 18, the Senate today, as expected, moved a four-year extension of key provisions of the PATRIOT Act closer to a final vote.

The vote results come as no surprise, but they do continue a notable episode on the Senate floor. The sparring between Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has sparked interest in an issue that otherwise might have prompted little new discussion.

The disagreement between the two senators has been as much procedural as positional. Reid promised a full week of debate and an open amendment process, but later balked when time ran short. When Paul complained yesterday about his inability to offer amendments, Reid essentially accused him of single-handedly jeopardizing the nation’s security.

Paul shot back: “I’ve been accused of wanting to allow terrorists to have weapons to attack America … To be attacked of such a belief when I’m here to discuss and debate the constitutionality of the Patriot Act is offensive and I find it personally insulting.”

Now, Reid just might allow a vote on Paul’s most important amendment, after all:

Senate Democratic leadership seems poised to acquiesce to Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-Ky.) demand that the chamber vote on an amendment that would restrict national security officials from examining gun dealer records in their efforts to track potential terrorists.

The Kentucky Republican had been insisting that such language at least receive a vote as an addition to the extension of the USA Patriot Act. As of Wednesday night, it appeared that he would be stymied.

By Thursday morning, however, the landscape had changed and multiple sources on the Hill confirmed to The Huffington Post that a vote on that amendment and one other would happen — likely as a means of expediting passage of the Patriot Act’s extension.

Lost in all of this are the implications of the actual extensions or the lack thereof. Unfortunately, the spat between the two senators has shifted the focus from the PATRIOT Act itself and onto personalities. But Paul, after all, is not the only person to have questioned the constitutionality of the PATRIOT Act. Plenty on the left have attacked the law, as well.

Now more than ever, though, the law is worth defending and extending, as Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) and Patriot Act co-author Nathan Sales wrote in a Politico op-ed today:

As Congress takes up legislation to reauthorize three expiring parts of the Patriot Act, it should take seriously the tea party’s commitment to constitutional fidelity.

Judged by that standard, Patriot passes with flying colors. It just lets counterterrorism agents use some of the same tools that regular cops have used for decades. These tools have exacting safeguards to protect civil liberties, and federal courts have consistently upheld their constitutionality.

The Senate has until midnight tonight to extend the PATRIOT Act — and squabbling shouldn’t stop it. The vast majority of the Senate is on the right side of the actual issue. Vote on Paul’s amendment or don’t, but definitely don’t slow down the extension or risk a lapse in the provisions (and many of Paul’s colleagues — even those sympathetic about Reid’s treatment of him — agree).

While Reid and Paul make drama, King and Sales put it all in perspective: “Osama bin Laden is dead, but Al Qaeda is still very much alive. This is no time to go wobbly in the war on terror.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I don’t believe that judge.

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 2:49 PM

Clinton was also bombing Iraq through out the 90′s with the same stacked justice department of neoconservatives.

He had the same twisted agenda as Bush did more or less.

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 2:50 PM

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Let us not forget that Glenn Greenwald is the pre-eminent sock puppet in human history.

Really Right on May 26, 2011 at 2:51 PM

O Duce weighs in:

Obama Administration Says Rand Paul Risking National Security by Delaying Patriot Act

Boogey boogey boogey! Be afraid, be very afraid…

I, for one, am far more afraid of the US government than any boogeyman Islamicist.

The unPatriot Act has been used more in the idiotic federal War on Drugs than for any other purpose.

No surprise, then, when a department of justice official testifying before Congress in 2009 admitted that Patriot Act provisions were overwhelmingly used to go after drug dealers rather than terrorists. The constitution’s fourth amendment protects people and their property against “unreasonable search and seizure” without “probable cause”. The Patriot Act tossed the probable cause provision out the window. Now, if government agents want to read your mail, listen to your phone conversations, comb through your financial records or worse, they don’t need evidence or a search warrant; they need only say, “It’s for a terrorism investigation.”

Rae on May 26, 2011 at 2:56 PM

One of the first steps to Dictatorship, seems we don’t learn anything from history.
Rand Paul is 100% right and should be supported by all patriots.
The vote on his ammendment, if allowed, will show who is for the constitution and who is not,REMEMBER THE NAMES

concernedsenior on May 26, 2011 at 2:35 PM

This is exactly correct, Godwin withstanding. Anyone that would defend even more infringement to our 2nd amendment is defending and/or promoting complete totalitarian rule. Give the gov’t an inch it will take 100 miles. Oppression does not make us any safer it just makes the oppressors the real terrorists.

Sammy316 on May 26, 2011 at 2:57 PM

Essentially anything that comes out of the U.S. Justice Department is suspect.

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 2:59 PM

Clinton was also bombing Iraq through out the 90′s with the same stacked justice department of neoconservatives.

He had the same twisted agenda as Bush did more or less.

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 2:50 PM

Bush was right before he was wrong, and left.

Rae on May 26, 2011 at 3:02 PM

Do you mean the National Socialist Left’s attempts at silencing their opposition with talk of the ‘New Civility’ at every opportunity?

Do you mean the National Socialist Left’s attempts at taking away our basic human right of self defense with talk of implementing gun control “under the radar?”

Do you mean the National Socialist Left’s attempts at destroying property rights with incessant calls for taxing the snot out of the rich so they can “Spread the Wealth around”?

Do you mean the National Socialist Left’s attempts at controlling people through the cudgel of Øbamacare?

Or, do you mean Sheriff Dipstick’s policy of sending in SWAT teams when someone may have a gun and shooting them on sight?

Antiwar is a Libertarian website not a left wing website.

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 2:29 PM

It matter not what type of website it is, those issues are still relevant and it should be pretty evident that it is the National Socialist Left – Liberals that are the biggest threat to liberty.

Colbyjack on May 26, 2011 at 3:07 PM

Safeguards to protect civil liberties? Oh, so when I’m handed a Letter that requires me to co-operate in the investigation, prohibits me from contacting a lawyer, or discussing the National Security Letter with anyone, and is considered just cause for my arrest should I refuse to co-operate. My civil liberties are protected?

The funny thing here is this. To anyone who has even breezed through the Cliff notes version of the Constitution you have to know it is not protecting my civil liberties. It prohibits me from contacting a lawyer, despite the fact that access to council is one of my rights. It is a warrant to search, not signed nor approved by the Judicial, and not issued with due process or probable cause. Again a violation of my civil rights. It requires me to provide evidence including testimony potentially against myself, a violation of yet another amendment.

So where are my civil liberty protections? Oh I know, in the sewer with the freedom to board an airplane with my dignity intact.

Snake307 on May 26, 2011 at 3:13 PM

Sorry, fellow Conservatives, i cannot support the Patriot Act as it stands presently any longer.

I’m friggin tired of the government overseeing everything I do. Terrorists schmerrorists. And King can suck it. Let’s debate whats in the Bill, and stop calling it a Patriot Act, when there is nothing patriotic about it.

Vincenzo on May 26, 2011 at 3:15 PM

Essentially anything that comes out of the U.S. Justice Department is suspect.

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 2:59 PM

Whereas EVERYTHING you post in the comments is bullshite.

catmman on May 26, 2011 at 3:19 PM

I love that supporters of the Patriot Act say its sooo much more important NOW then ever before.

Why don’t you start securing the borders, inspecting freight as it comes into United States, and secure the safety of the food chain coming into this country?

Instead, we get laws used to go after petty “organized crime” and spy on fellow Americans for no good reason.

Total utter crap.

Vincenzo on May 26, 2011 at 3:20 PM

Paul standing strong on CSPAN2. Tune if you want to see someone who’s finally standing up to thugs in DC.

Nelsen on May 26, 2011 at 3:56 PM

I don’t believe that judge.

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 2:49 PM

Translated:

Del is kicking my getalife to the Equator and back.”

BTW, there were actual 2 Federal indictments against bin Laden in 1998. The first one was only 8 pages long.

But it was the second indictment that charged him with working with Iraq. And that indictment was handed down by a sitting Federal Grand Jury.

From Page A1 of the NY Times, November 5, 1998:

A Federal grand jury in Manhattan returned a 238-count indictment yesterday charging the Saudi exile Osama bin Laden in the bombings of two United States Embassies in Africa in August and with conspiring to commit other acts of terrorism against Americans abroad.

Government officials immediately announced that they were offering two rewards of $5 million each for information leading to the arrest or conviction of Mr. bin Laden and another man charged yesterday, Muhammad Atef, who was described as Mr. bin Laden’s chief military commander.

-snip-

The new indictment, which supersedes the June action, accuses Mr. bin Laden of leading a vast terrorist conspiracy from 1989 to the present, in which he is said to have been working in concert with governments, including those of Sudan, Iraq and Iran, and terrorist groups to build weapons and attack American military installations.

Can you explain to us why Iraq would be the only country in the world to not have an al Qaeda presence?

No, of course you can’t. But please do try!

Del Dolemonte on May 26, 2011 at 3:56 PM

Essentially anything that comes out of the U.S. Justice Department is suspect.

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 2:59 PM

Translated:

“There was only one single country in the entire world where al Qaeda did not operate.

Irag.”

Del Dolemonte on May 26, 2011 at 4:00 PM

“There was only one single country in the entire world where al Qaeda did not operate.

Iraq.”

Fixed.

Del Dolemonte on May 26, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Are you actually admitting that the WoT is another Crusade?

I’m stating the obvious fact – islam is waging jihad against Western civilization in general, and America specifically. The clearly stated goal – all the world under sharia law. Hide your head in the sand if you like, but don’t criticize those who are standing up and fighting back.

Question: Which of the ten Amendments that make up the BoR DO you so-called conservatives think are worth defending?

Rae on May 26, 2011 at 2:24 PM

I’ll let Thomas Jefferson answer you:

[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.

Rebar on May 26, 2011 at 4:09 PM

What exactly is a “Spathi”, anyway?

Del Dolemonte on May 26, 2011 at 1:37 PM

Shit in a cow path

Wade on May 26, 2011 at 5:30 PM

This is exactly correct, Godwin withstanding…Give the gov’t an inch it will take 100 miles. Oppression does not make us any safer it just makes the oppressors the real terrorists.

Sammy316 on May 26, 2011 at 2:57 PM

My thoughts precisely. You want actual security, people? Lock down the border. Immediately if not sooner. McCarthyist bullcr@p like that ‘patriot’ acts will get us nothing but less freedom.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 26, 2011 at 5:45 PM

Rebar on May 26, 2011 at 4:09 PM

And yet…

Why don’t you start securing the borders, inspecting freight as it comes into United States, and secure the safety of the food chain coming into this country?

Instead, we get laws used to go after petty “organized crime” and spy on fellow Americans for no good reason.

Total utter crap.

Vincenzo on May 26, 2011 at 3:20 PM

As far as your modern-day Crusade goes, how do you rationalize your support for the wars that have built two Islamic States with Constitutions based on Sharia law?

Bugging out of this joint to Chile is sounding better with every passing day, and with every word from you pathetic cowards.

“The fact is, there is no enemy, there is no fight… there is only gradual erosion of freedom and opportunity.”

Americans already have to put up with dispensation of the Constitution at airports, border checkpoints, political events, many train station, and soon to be bus terminals and shopping malls. We’d better add ‘private residence’ to that list as well.

The right to protect oneself and one’s property against unlawful entry is the hallmark of any free civilization. Conversely, it is the hallmark of a totalitarian police state when government goons have the authority to go stomping around on private property without oversight of a judicious, impartial court.

There is no middle ground here… and a government that is on the way to denying this right is not far down the road from denying other basic, seemingly no-brainer rights– like assembly, criticizing the government, and possession of firearms.

Rae on May 26, 2011 at 6:16 PM

I answered you, Rebar. It’s gone to moderation, or something.

Rae on May 26, 2011 at 6:19 PM

All the quivering weasels can change their Depends now. Paul’s amendments to the unPatriot Act went down in flames, and the USG will continue to spy on us alleged free people with impunity.

Go team!

Rae on May 26, 2011 at 7:00 PM

Wow, I regularly read Hot Air, but I am really put off by this article. The author is a devoted facsist. Unbelievable.

Henry Bowman on May 26, 2011 at 7:36 PM

Now more than ever, though, the law is worth defending and extending

If it’s so “benign” then why wasn’t it made a permanent fixure of law instead of one that requires frequent “extension”?

It is NOT a benign law – it DOES restrict liberty – and that is why there is NO SUPPORT to make this a permanent law.

HondaV65 on May 26, 2011 at 8:07 PM

Rae on May 26, 2011 at 6:16 PM

Insofar that planting the seeds of discord in islamic lands, I’m for it. The only thing the barbaric savages love is murder, if they’re busy murdering each other, that’s a win-win in my book.

That there is no border security, I’ve long been an advocate of an Israeli cement wall across the entire border. That we’re killing jihadists in the Middle East, is not why there is no wall, there is no wall because we failed to elect people who would have done it.

But don’t be ignorant – there is a war between our civilization and the barbarism known as islam. They shout it from their minarets every single day, time to open your ears to what they plainly say.

Rebar on May 26, 2011 at 8:42 PM

“He that wishes to see his country robbed of its rights cannot be a patriot.”

AshleyTKing on May 26, 2011 at 9:20 PM

http://www.ronpaul2012podcast.com/2011/05/26/sen-rand-paul-on-sean-hannity-show-5262011/

Rand Paul interviewed by Hannity today on his radio show.

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 10:20 PM

All the quivering weasels can change their Depends now. Paul’s amendments to the unPatriot Act went down in flames, and the USG will continue to spy on us alleged free people with impunity.

Go team!

Rae on May 26, 2011 at 7:00 PM

Not surprising. Paul can really be a lone voice in the wilderness sometimes, emphasis on ‘lone’.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 26, 2011 at 11:08 PM

This has GOT to be a thread:

Ed? Allah?

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) got bushwhacked on the Patriot Act: He said Obama couldn’t sign it because he’s in Europe.

So 0bama is going to sign it by AUTO-PEN!

That has to violate the spirit of the law. The president is supposed to read bills before signing them.

So an AUTO-PEN signature, when he is across the Atlantic, is going to suffice to sign the Patriot Act extension??

Exactly HOW MANY other bills has 0bama been signing by Auto-Pen?!?!

WOW! WOWWWW!

——————–

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55803.html

Capping a week of political bickering and parliamentary delays, the House joined the Senate on Thursday to approve a four-year extension of key provisions of the Patriot Act that are set to expire at midnight.

Because President Barack Obama is traveling in Europe, a White House official said the bill will quickly be signed into law using an autopen, a machine that replicates the president’s signature.

The longtime liberal from Vermont voted no and rejected assertions by Republicans that his objections would have been to blame for the Patriot Act provisions expiring, something top Obama administration officials warned could threaten national security during a time of heightened alert.

“There is no conceivable way this thing can get passed and signed by the president anyway [before the provisions expire],” Leahy told two reporters before the vote, unaware that the White House intended to attach the president’s signature via autopen. “So that was the most bogus, damn argument that’s been made in this place today.”

cane_loader on May 26, 2011 at 11:09 PM

I like this take on that interview with your son better, Ron.

http://dailypaul.com/165963/rand-paul-will-be-on-hannity-radio-show-to-talk-about-patriot-act

Hannity actually asks Rand who he supports for 2012, as if he has no idea that a real conservative named Ron Paul is in the race…stunning!

Now, tell us again how al Qaeda could be in any country in the world other than one.

Del Dolemonte on May 26, 2011 at 11:40 PM

How can it be constitutional if Ron and Rand Paul say it isn’t?

Libertarians only SAY they are “fighting for the Constitution;” the reality is quite different. How can you support the Constitution if you do not accept its own specific delegation of power to “decide disputes arising under this Constitution” to SCOTUS? Many of the issues the LPers scream about – like “declarations of war” and the Social Security system and many others – have already been tested in the courts and upheld by SCOTUS.

See, Libertarians don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution to tell THEM what it means. THEY tell YOU what is constitutional and what isn’t. That’s not freedom and that’s not the rule of law, people. It’s rule by fiat, dictatorship.

It’s been said the Soviet Constitution of the early ’30s might be the most protective of citizens’ rights ever written. Of course, none of it meant anything beyond what Stalin said it meant – he was obviously a strong influence on the Pauls.

So welcome to the Dictatorship of the Libertariat, Rand Paul (a/k/a “Courageous Leader”), Official Arbiter of Constitutionality. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. . . .

Adjoran on May 27, 2011 at 12:59 AM

“He that wishes to see his country robbed of its rights cannot be a patriot.”

AshleyTKing on May 26, 2011 at 9:20 PM

This.

Rae on May 27, 2011 at 4:08 AM

Essentially anything that comes out of the U.S. Justice Department is suspect.

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 2:59 PM

Whereas EVERYTHING you post in the comments is bullshite.

catmman on May 26, 2011 at 3:19 PM

Catman is your real name Eric Holder by chance?

snoopicus on May 27, 2011 at 8:19 AM

It’s been said the Soviet Constitution of the early ’30s might be the most protective of citizens’ rights ever written. Of course, none of it meant anything beyond what Stalin said it meant – he was obviously a strong influence on the Pauls.

So welcome to the Dictatorship of the Libertariat, Rand Paul (a/k/a “Courageous Leader”), Official Arbiter of Constitutionality. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. . . .

Adjoran on May 27, 2011 at 12:59 AM

Is there an award for dumbest post evah?

snoopicus on May 27, 2011 at 8:21 AM

My favorite part of the Patriot Act re-authorization is that it will be signed by a robot.

snoopicus on May 27, 2011 at 8:22 AM

What has happened to the men in this country? Where have they gone? Has manhood been beaten out of us? I feel like I stand alone.

Protection? I don’t want your protection. I don’t need your protection. National security? What national security? What exactly has been secured? The border? No. The skies? no. The streets? No. Security is an illusion.

We have become a nation of the feminine ruled by the feminine who will give up everything for “safety” and “security” and “protection” of BigGov Daddy.

“Oh … protect me Big Gov Daddy! I can’t protect myself! Save me BigGov Daddy! I can’t save myself! Yes, yes, I’ll give you my rights, just protect me! Yes, yes, you can have my freedom, just keep me safe! Yes, yes, you can fondle my penis, and breasts, and my child’s and baby breasts, just keep me safe on my flight! Yes, you can come snoop in my house anytime … I don’t have anything to hide, just keep the bad guys off the streets. Yes, yes, I’ll pay more. I’ll do more. I’ll give more and more and more to be safe!”

Pathetic.

j_galt on May 27, 2011 at 10:40 AM

I love how libertarians throw a temper-tantrum if you dare insult Ron Paul or Ayn Rand.

Machiavelli Hobbes on May 27, 2011 at 11:26 AM

I love how libertarians throw a temper-tantrum if you dare insult Ron Paul or Ayn Rand.

Machiavelli Hobbes on May 27, 2011 at 11:26 AM

gotta love how statists hate libertarians.

snoopicus on May 27, 2011 at 12:00 PM

Machiavelli Hobbes on May 27, 2011 at 11:26 AM

I love it how ‘conservatives’ throw a snit-fit if you dare to dethrone Saint Sarah.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 27, 2011 at 12:27 PM

Is there an award for dumbest post evah?

snoopicus on May 27, 2011 at 8:21 AM

If there is, then that sniveling snotbag should win it.

Our enemies are the religious zealouts trying to KILL or ENSLAVE us, not fellow citizens who are pointing out that ‘security’ measures like the Patriot Act secure nothing.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 27, 2011 at 12:30 PM

George W Bush was the neocons Terrorist leader yet they complain about Rand Paul fighting for civil liberties.

Spathi on May 27, 2011 at 12:38 PM

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 27, 2011 at 12:27 PM

Try again.

I leave the idol worship to the immature.

Machiavelli Hobbes on May 27, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Posts like this make me think TK is going to be sort of a generic rightwing poster with very little analysis or a unique POV. Just towin the party line.

snoopicus on May 27, 2011 at 2:28 PM

My favorite part of the Patriot Act re-authorization is that it will be signed by a robot.

snoopicus on May 27, 2011 at 8:22 AM

Obanksta robo-signs away our BoR. How apropos. I wonder if the sig reads “Linda Green.”

j_galt on May 27, 2011 at 10:40 AM

I know, right? Land of the Free, Home of the Brave? Please!

“So this is how liberty dies…with thunderous applause,” by self-proclaimed “patriots and Constitutionalists.” Their self-delusion would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic, since we all get the Welfare-Warfare-Police State that Boobus Americanus want and deserve.

Time to shrug to Chile, I think.

I echo the absolute vanity and hopelessness of relying on the Republican party to save America, even the relatively few dedicated “tea party” people that might now make up 10% of the 454 (with rare exception) evildoers in the House of Representatives. They will not be able to steer, veer or otherwise alter the course of the boat they are on. Public choice theory (correctly) precludes such a thing. There is a greater probability that our parents will find the fountain of youth by Christmas, than that the Republican party will “fix” America or restore its constitutional and Jeffersonian base.
[...]
There are some places in the world in which the ideas of liberty are being well-received. Chile is one of them.

Rae on May 27, 2011 at 2:34 PM

Boobus Americanus

Its always nice to see a fellow Menken fan!

snoopicus on May 27, 2011 at 2:37 PM

Time to shrug to Chile, I think.

I echo the absolute vanity and hopelessness of relying on the Republican party to save America, even the relatively few dedicated “tea party” people that might now make up 10% of the 454 (with rare exception) evildoers in the House of Representatives. They will not be able to steer, veer or otherwise alter the course of the boat they are on. Public choice theory (correctly) precludes such a thing. There is a greater probability that our parents will find the fountain of youth by Christmas, than that the Republican party will “fix” America or restore its constitutional and Jeffersonian base.
[...]
There are some places in the world in which the ideas of liberty are being well-received. Chile is one of them.
Rae on May 27, 2011 at 2:34 PM

Good thing i started learning spanish a few years back

snoopicus on May 27, 2011 at 2:38 PM

You spew sh!t like this, and then have the effing gaul to wonder why the GOP won’t endorse your candidates.

Machiavelli Hobbes on May 27, 2011 at 2:48 PM

Its always nice to see a fellow Menken fan!

snoopicus on May 27, 2011 at 2:37 PM

“H. L. Mencken is the greatest broadax man we’ve ever had in American letters.”
–Isabel Paterson

To this day, he has no equal!

“The men the American public admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.”
–H. L. Mencken

Rae on May 27, 2011 at 2:53 PM

Congratulations on getting this many comments, Tina.

Machiavelli Hobbes on May 27, 2011 at 2:58 PM

Let’s ask the innocent Marine Iraq-war vet in Arizona how he feels about having government reps kicking down the door, of course he’s dead after taking 61 rounds to the body, so the answers might be sort of hushed.

No warrants to bust down a door? On anyone? This will not end well.

Bishop on May 26, 2011 at 1:27 PM

What will not end well? If those agents acted improperly, then justice should be done in that case. If they violated that dead man’s rights, then they should be prosecuted. If they end up getting away with a violation of his rights, then you will have a case to make in that regard. Not until then.

I agree with you that there is precedent being set to permit abuse of the 4th amendment, but this isn’t a good example.

JannyMae on May 27, 2011 at 5:51 PM

Good thing i started learning spanish a few years back

snoopicus on May 27, 2011 at 2:38 PM

I seriously encourage everyone here to start learning Chinese and Spanish. The possibility that you may need to read/write/speak the basics of those languages in the near future in an emergency situation is frighteningly high.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 27, 2011 at 8:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2