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

*crickets* from the ACLU

John the Libertarian on May 26, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Or
Save the drama for Obama.

carbon_footprint on May 26, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Patriot Act-
Good parts.
Bad parts.
Question is, which parts are keeping us safe?
And what laws & responsibilities has the federal govt been neglecting & outright ignoring that have endangered us?

Badger40 on May 26, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Save the drama for your mama.

But…he’s got dibs!

(Sorry for the inanity, but I couldn’t help myself.)

Cylor on May 26, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Awesome … another liberal writing for HuffAir. What are we up to now … three out of four?

Jaibones on May 26, 2011 at 1:14 PM

There is no War on terror. It’s a criminal justice issue at most.

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 1:14 PM

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.”

Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Dr Evil on May 26, 2011 at 1:15 PM

And what laws & responsibilities has the federal govt been neglecting & outright ignoring that have endangered us?

Badger40 on May 26, 2011 at 1:11 PM

For starters, maybe the law that makes it illegal to enter our country without proper papers…..? Oh, sorry…that is xenophobic.

search4truth on May 26, 2011 at 1:15 PM

There is no War on terror. It’s a criminal justice issue at most.

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Ask the troops in Afghanistan how they feel about that.

rickyricardo on May 26, 2011 at 1:17 PM

I for one like my rights and freedoms. Let the garbage act expire.

mythicknight on May 26, 2011 at 1:18 PM

Bring all the troops home…

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 1:18 PM

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.

Where to start? The only reason that they have such a tight deadline is because Reid didn’t get it to the floor on time. And in this case, Sen Paul is on the right side of the issue and the majority of the Senate is wrong. What about the 4th Amendment?

huckleberryfriend on May 26, 2011 at 1:19 PM

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

I still fail to see why.

SouthernGent on May 26, 2011 at 1:22 PM

The biggest problem I have with the P Act is that is has nothing at all to do with Terrorism, and everything do with the War on Drugs…

100% of the P Act is a wish list for the DEA…

the_ancient on May 26, 2011 at 1:23 PM

All Senators take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. The provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act that Rand Paul wants to amend literally strip all Americans of our 4th Amendment rights – any senator that takes his oath of office seriously should be fighting to support Sen. Paul’s amendments.

I salute Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and the few others who have joined them in this fight. They are true patriots.

Inkblots on May 26, 2011 at 1:24 PM

There is no War on terror. It’s a criminal justice issue at most.

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 1:14 PM

You’re an idiot.

Signed,

Thomas Jefferson

fossten on May 26, 2011 at 1:25 PM

And what laws & responsibilities has the federal govt been neglecting & outright ignoring that have endangered us?

Badger40 on May 26, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Maybe if we had the facts to those questions the administration would probably be served with Federal Marshals serving subpoenas.

fourdeucer on May 26, 2011 at 1:26 PM

There is no War on terror. It’s a criminal justice issue at most.

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Well I agree that we need to clear up this issue.
Declare war on all countries that support the islamic agenda.
Then we can more fully deal with that problem.

Badger40 on May 26, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Bring all the troops home…

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 1:18 PM

…just what we need,more Cindy Sheehan and Micheal Moore Foreign policy advice.

Baxter Greene on May 26, 2011 at 1:26 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

Now more than ever, though, the law is Constitutional rights of American citizens are worth defending and extending

FIFY, Tina.

Inkblots on May 26, 2011 at 1:27 PM

fourdeucer on May 26, 2011 at 1:26 PM

In a just world, this would be happening.

Badger40 on May 26, 2011 at 1:27 PM

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

Bishop on May 26, 2011 at 1:27 PM

And God forbid if you resist illegal entry of your home.

Badger40 on May 26, 2011 at 1:28 PM

GOOD.

nickj116 on May 26, 2011 at 1:29 PM

OT: Hmmmmmmm?

ConservativePartyNow on May 26, 2011 at 1:29 PM

What about the 4th Amendment?

huckleberryfriend on May 26, 2011 at 1:19 PM

Patriot Act = crap.
It’s a license for law enforcement off all kinds to go hog wild.
If the feds actually did their job in other ways to secure this country’s borders, etc, things like this would not be thought of as necessary.
It’s putting band aids on a sucking chest wound.

Badger40 on May 26, 2011 at 1:29 PM

OT: Hmmmmm?

ConservativePartyNow on May 26, 2011 at 1:30 PM

And God forbid if you resist illegal entry of your home.
Badger40 on May 26, 2011 at 1:28 PM

That’s the worst part, the Marine held his fire when he saw the intruders of his home were cops, but they blew him away and then didn’t allow paramedics to attend him until over an hour later. He was actually still alive after taking 61 bullets.

Anyone who thinks this provision of the PA is dandy needs to have their skull trepanned.

Bishop on May 26, 2011 at 1:32 PM

ConservativePartyNow on May 26, 2011 at 1:30 PM

interesting…

cmsinaz on May 26, 2011 at 1:32 PM

There is no War on terror. It’s a criminal justice issue at most.

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 1:14 PM

…yes of course…
………the courts will save us from the jihadist.

Ahmadenjad and terrorist around the world are shaking in their boots in fear of appearing before a Move on . org inspired California jury.

…it’s judge Judy to the rescue!!!!

Baxter Greene on May 26, 2011 at 1:33 PM

I have a problem with this bill that nobody has really read[sound familiar] and tramples all over the Constitution. Warrantless searches are not correct. Why can we not have judges who are on 24 hour call,knowledgable in antiterror procedures and investigations that can issue warrants? There can be a rotating list of them to take shifts. As a retired military and commercial pilot, I know all about”reserve”and “contingency”. There is a war going on, let the “justice system” work 24 hours a day,,the enemy is attempting to take our freedoms 24 hours a day,and the lack of a 24 hour a day justice system is helping them.

retiredeagle on May 26, 2011 at 1:34 PM

“War on Terror” will end up being the biggest government programs since the New Deal and the Great Society.

Only instead of republican resistance, the GOP have been cheerleading this charade.

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 1:34 PM

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

I still fail to see why.

SouthernGent on May 26, 2011 at 1:22 PM

I agree, we need to look very carefully at what we are going to do “for our own good”. Or “to keep us safe”. Thats the same patronizing bullshit politicians say when they confiscate raw milk, shut down internet sites, or Obamas Consumer Protection force or whatever. Patriot Act = TSA have fun when some douche grabs your junk and fondles your wife’s and daughter’s breasts to “keep you safe”

snoopicus on May 26, 2011 at 1:34 PM

“has” been

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 1:35 PM

It’s good to know that the one thing both Dems and Reps agree on is the extension of the second worst piece of legislation enacted in the past 50 years.

#1 of course being Obamacare

angryed on May 26, 2011 at 1:35 PM

There is no War on terror. It’s a criminal justice issue at most.

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 1:14 PM

That’s what Bill Clinton said too. 9/11 was the result.

You do know that bin Laden said the 9/11 attacks were supposed to happen on Clinton’s watch, don’t you?

Del Dolemonte on May 26, 2011 at 1:36 PM

“War on Terror” will end up being the biggest government programs since the New Deal and the Great Society.

Only instead of republican resistance, the GOP have been cheerleading this charade.

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 1:34 PM

sad isn’t it.

snoopicus on May 26, 2011 at 1:36 PM

“War on Terror” will end up being the biggest government programs since the New Deal and the Great Society.

Only instead of republican resistance, the GOP have been cheerleading this charade.

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 1:34 PM

What exactly is a “Spathi”, anyway?

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

OT: Hmmmmm? ConservativePartyNow on May 26, 2011 at 1:30 PM

Jael lifts her hammer…

Akzed on May 26, 2011 at 1:38 PM

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.

Yeah, how terrible that would have been, discussing massive legislation which includes provisions that are blatantly unconstitutional; oh the horror.

*cough OBAMACARE cough*

Bishop on May 26, 2011 at 1:38 PM

Patriot act bad, blah blah blah.

Doesn’t change the FACT that islam is at war with us, and muslems all over the world – including inside America – are plotting to kill us.

Rebar on May 26, 2011 at 1:39 PM

Bush killed so many Americans in Iraq war though, and even more Iraqis probably 1/2 million or so. More than the 9/11 attackers.

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 1:40 PM

Anyone who thinks this provision of the PA is dandy needs to have their skull trepanned.

Bishop on May 26, 2011 at 1:32 PM

It can happen to any of us.
They may think that bcs we are registered owning lots of rifles that we are a domestic terrorist threat & come at us with the FBI & ATF.
Waco?
And resisting or appearing to resist or even throwing your arms up in a surrendur will still get you killed.
This is evil stuff.

“War on Terror” will end up being the biggest government programs since the New Deal and the Great Society.

Only instead of republican resistance, the GOP have been cheerleading this charade.

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 1:34 PM
sad isn’t it.

snoopicus on May 26, 2011 at 1:36 PM

Nothing a well placed tactical nuke couldn’t solve.
War is war.
Let’s stop being squeamish & fight it right.
Get it over with one fell swoop.

Badger40 on May 26, 2011 at 1:41 PM

There is no War on terror. It’s a criminal justice issue at most.

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Ron Paul recognizes that terrorism is Private War that should be worked out via the Letters Language and utilizing the Law of Nations.

Private War is still war. It can be fought with official military power, private military power with sanction via the Letters Language, and by standard law enforcement. Private War does not end until its actors are dead or have been brought before military tribunals or tried for Piracy.

It is one of my few points of agreement with the man.

ajacksonian on May 26, 2011 at 1:41 PM

What exactly is a “Spathi”, anyway?
Del Dolemonte on May 26, 2011 at 1:37 PM

The Spathi are a cowardly race of “meta-mollusks”, self-described as possessing the “best qualities of both the clam and the Dravatz”

Litsa Spathi (born 1958) is a Greek painter, performer and Fluxus artist, currently living in Heidelberg, Germany and Breda, Netherlands. …

Take your pick.

Akzed on May 26, 2011 at 1:42 PM

Amazing the rank ignorance of not only.the Patriot Act but criminal law and what the Constitution actually says. Hotair is invaded by dishonest ACLU. Liberals.

jp on May 26, 2011 at 1:42 PM

BushThe enemy killed so many Americans in Iraq war though, and even more Iraqis casualties of war probably 1/2 million or so. More than the 9/11 attackers.

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 1:40 PM

And incidentally, I thought the purpose of going to fight your enemy on their home turf was to get rid of more than how many guys of yours they killed.

Badger40 on May 26, 2011 at 1:43 PM

Thank God for Rand Paul. At least someone in Washington cares about restoring our Bill of Rights.

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.”

Please. Our borders are wide open, yet we allow the fedgov to spy on us with impunity, and grope and naked scan us just to board a GD plane.

As many may or may not be aware, O Duce also has a Secret Patriot Act, but we are not allowed to be privy to his unconstitutional spying shenanigans, because it’s secret:

You think you understand how the Patriot Act allows the government to spy on its citizens. Sen. Ron Wyden says it’s worse than you know.
[...]
“We’re getting to a gap between what the public thinks the law says and what the American government secretly thinks the law says,” Wyden told Danger Room in an interview in his Senate office. “When you’ve got that kind of a gap, you’re going to have a problem on your hands.”

What exactly does Wyden mean by that? As a member of the intelligence committee, he laments that he can’t precisely explain without disclosing classified information. But one component of the Patriot Act in particular gives him immense pause: the so-called “business-records provision,” which empowers the FBI to get businesses, medical offices, banks and other organizations to turn over any “tangible things” it deems relevant to a security investigation.

(Paging Wikileaks…)

Also, Pete King is the biggest police state fascist in Washington, and that’s really saying something. The rule is: If you want liberty, then whatever Pete King wants, do the opposite.

Why do the Republicrats hate the Framers and our Constitution?

Rae on May 26, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Ron Paul has said that there is no War on terrorism in his “What If” speech, which is his most famous speech.

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 1:45 PM

Bush killed so many Americans in Iraq war though, and even more Iraqis probably 1/2 million or so. More than the 9/11 attackers.
Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 1:40 PM

Yep, and I have video footage of Dubya driving car bombs into Shiite markets in Baghdad, jumping out at the last second before the explosion.

I’m going to release this footage to the world when the time is right.

Bishop on May 26, 2011 at 1:45 PM

Doesn’t change the FACT that islam is at war with us, and muslems all over the world – including inside America – are plotting to kill us.

Rebar on May 26, 2011 at 1:39 PM

That’s why the federal govt should be protecting its borders & soverignty in various ways it is not doing at present.
The Patriot Act is not necessary.
Bcs the feds are doing everything else they are not supposed to do & NOT doing the few things they ARE supposed to do.

Badger40 on May 26, 2011 at 1:45 PM

an amendment that would restrict national security officials from examining gun dealer records in their efforts to track potential terrorists

The definition of potential terrorists according to the current DHS secretary includes veterans, pro-life people, gun owners and those opposed to the liberal agenda. I salute and support this amendment.

fourdeucer on May 26, 2011 at 1:46 PM

Yeah, how terrible that would have been, discussing massive legislation which includes provisions that are blatantly unconstitutional; oh the horror.

*cough OBAMACARE cough*

Bishop on May 26, 2011 at 1:38 PM

Dumb so-called ‘citizens’, most of whom have never even held elected office (!), know little and less of the legislative process, and should butt out of the business of our betters in Congress.

Shame on Sen. Paul for confusing the people with silly arguments about protecting citizens’ Constitutional rights. Sen. Reid and Rep. King are right: huge, controversial pieces of legislation like Obamacare and the USA PATRIOT Act should go through on the nod, and Paul is dishonoring himself by messing up the bipartisan happiness on Capitol Hill.

Inkblots on May 26, 2011 at 1:46 PM

OT: Palin-More evidence

ConservativePartyNow on May 26, 2011 at 1:46 PM

Letters of marquis was a complete.disaster. which is why founders abandoned it. Also…terrorist like bin laden have had bounties on their heads since before 9/11 and it did no good

jp on May 26, 2011 at 1:46 PM

Please, everyone should listen to Rand Paul’s floor speech on the unPatriot Act.

Rae on May 26, 2011 at 1:47 PM

Why do the Republicrats hate the Framers and our Constitution?

Rae on May 26, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Why do the libertarians want to allow muslems free reign to plot ever more terrorist murder sprees, with the goal of imposing sharia law over America?

Rebar on May 26, 2011 at 1:48 PM

The 4th amendment says “UNREASONABLE” for a reason. Why the founders themselves seized mail to citizens without warrant to catch british spies and pass laws like the seditions act

jp on May 26, 2011 at 1:48 PM

The catch-all phrase, “War on Terrorism,” in all honesty, has no more meaning than if one wants to wage a war against criminal gangsterism. It’s deliberately vague and non-definable to justify and permit perpetual war anywhere, and under any circumstances.

-Ron Paul

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 1:48 PM

There is no War on terror. It’s a criminal justice issue at most.

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 1:14 PM

That’s what Bill Clinton said too. 9/11 was the result.

You do know that bin Laden said the 9/11 attacks were supposed to happen on Clinton’s watch, don’t you?

Del Dolemonte on May 26, 2011 at 1:36 PM

….because we all know that jihadist that have no problem blowing themselves to pieces in the name of Allah will tremble with fear of the American Courtroom.

….Hey…let’s just run away from the fight and hope that the government will be able to stop all the attacks on the US from the jihadist that are getting better armed and trained with each passing day…..
…………..”smart power”.

Baxter Greene on May 26, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Akzed on May 26, 2011 at 1:42 PM

Spathi in Greek means sword.

The name seems kind of blood thirsty.

Bishop on May 26, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 1:45 PM

Look here.
Ron Paul has some great ideas.
But unfortunately, he doesn’t understand that foreign policy thing & how important it is in keeping the rest of the world’s insanity at bay & from coming across the ocean to us.
There are good reasons to maintain relationships with some countries.
For trade & self survival.
You cannot bury your head in the sand & plug your ears.
That only invites lawlessness to your front door.

Badger40 on May 26, 2011 at 1:49 PM

seditions act

jp on May 26, 2011 at 1:48 PM

To which KY & VA had the ba!!s to tell the Feds to eff off in their Resolutions of 1798 & 1799 (I believe the dates are correct).

Badger40 on May 26, 2011 at 1:50 PM

Why the founders themselves seized mail to citizens without warrant to catch british spies and pass laws like the seditions act

jp on May 26, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Yep, the Constitutional rights of Americans have been under assault from progressives like you since the dawn of the Republic. This is why the price of Liberty is constant vigilance. I’m glad Rand Paul is doing his duty as a watchman for freedom.

Inkblots on May 26, 2011 at 1:50 PM

Inkblots on May 26, 2011 at 1:46 PM

It’s terrible, why do commoners believe that they should have so-called “protections” from their own government? Who the hell do they think they are, members of the enlightened?

Bishop on May 26, 2011 at 1:51 PM

Awesome … another liberal writing for HuffAir. What are we up to now … three out of four?

Jaibones on May 26, 2011 at 1:14 PM

It is only a matter of time until linking, believing, and responding to stories on the huff post, politico, and cnn blogs bites the truth in a very bad way.

Freddy on May 26, 2011 at 1:53 PM

jp on May 26, 2011 at 1:46 PM

The Letters are an understood power available to any Nation State under the Law of Nations and was utilized as late as the US Civil War. It is a tool in the Nation-State toolkit, which has positives and negatives attached to it. It does not go away due to ineffective utilization and oversight of it as Private War is an expression of humans under Natural Law: it cannot be abolished so long as Nature exists.

That is a fundamental understanding the Founders had of it, and utilized Privateers themselves when the US had no Navy during the Revolution. It was utilized to poor long-term effect by the Spanish, British and French Empires, yes, but the US could not sign onto any treaty regarding that power as it was in the US Constitution. The problems of the past, that of long communications lines and private actors going rogue still exist, but the ability to communicate and keep track of such actors is much better than it has been prior to the modern electronic age.

ajacksonian on May 26, 2011 at 1:54 PM

The catch-all phrase, “War on Terrorism,” in all honesty, has no more meaning than if one wants to wage a war against criminal gangsterism. It’s deliberately vague and non-definable to justify and permit perpetual war anywhere, and under any circumstances.

-Ron Paul

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 1:48 PM

…or it could signify a change from the failures of past American policy by taking the fight to the jihadist that have found support and sanctuary in all parts of the world.

………….but hey….let’s take advice from Ron Paul who thinks that Bush did 9/11 and that our support for Israel is a huge mistake.

Baxter Greene on May 26, 2011 at 1:54 PM

Why do the libertarians want to allow muslems free reign to plot ever more terrorist murder sprees, with the goal of imposing sharia law over America?

Rebar on May 26, 2011 at 1:48 PM

We don’t.

Why do “conservatives” want to wage perpetual wars in order to build Islamic states with Constitutions based on Sharia Law?

Rae on May 26, 2011 at 1:56 PM

You’re an idiot.

Signed,

Thomas Jefferson

fossten on May 26, 2011 at 1:25 PM

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Signed,
Benjamin Franklin

the_ancient on May 26, 2011 at 1:57 PM

Jaibones on May 26, 2011 at 1:14 PM

I missed this. Huffair?

ROFL

Now if only HA would reconfigure their dopey word filter so we could actually use words and terms that big people are allowed to use.

Bishop on May 26, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Rae on May 26, 2011 at

You’re right. Let’s annihilate Muslims down to the last conceivable child.

/Piss off, you-whine-about-everything-but-never-offer-any-solutions imbecile.

Machiavelli Hobbes on May 26, 2011 at 2:01 PM

The 4th amendment says “UNREASONABLE” for a reason. Why the founders themselves seized mail to citizens without warrant to catch british spies and pass laws like the seditions act

jp on May 26, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Thank you Bill Clinton, What does is mean by the way??

the_ancient on May 26, 2011 at 2:03 PM

We don’t.

Rae on May 26, 2011 at 1:56 PM

Your actions bely that answer.

The irony is, the world would be a far more fertile ground for libertarian ideals without islam, yet the libertarians are doing everything possible to insure islam remains not just a threat – but an existential danger to all human liberties for all time.

Rebar on May 26, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Well, its good to see the Paultards have taken a break from servicing Herr Doktor to spout their drivel.

catmman on May 26, 2011 at 2:04 PM

We don’t.

Why do “conservatives” want to wage perpetual wars in order to build Islamic states with Constitutions based on Sharia Law?

Rae on May 26, 2011 at 1:56 PM

We don’t. I’d sooner bomb them back to the 7th century where they want to be anyway, take over their oil, and leave.

fossten on May 26, 2011 at 2:06 PM

but an existential danger to all human liberties for all time.

Rebar on May 26, 2011 at 2:04 PM

They don’t think Islam is a threat.

They think America is.

Ask they’re Messiah, Herr Doktor.

catmman on May 26, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Bush killed so many Americans in Iraq war though, and even more Iraqis probably 1/2 million or so. More than the 9/11 attackers.

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 1:40 PM

You f**king idiot…

It was the islamist that were killing Americans.

Muslims kill more muslims than anybody.Bush took down Saddam and Al-qaeda that were responsible for the deaths of more than a million people in Iraq alone.

Please share for us with your infinite wisdom how to fight a war without losing lives…without it costing money…..and without any mistakes made.

The people of Iraq and the world are safer and better off
now that Iraq has been liberated.

This has become so evident that even liberals like Obama are saying so:


So Obama finds himself announcing principles that are indistinguishable from those advanced by President Bush in 2003. Obama even credited Iraq as an exemplar of Middle Eastern democracy:

[O]ne of the broader lessons to be drawn from this period is that sectarian divides need not lead to conflict. In Iraq, we see the promise of a multiethnic, multisectarian democracy. The Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence in favor of a democratic process, even as they’ve taken full responsibility for their own security. Of course, like all new democracies, they will face setbacks. But Iraq is poised to play a key role in the region if it continues its peaceful progress. And as they do, we will be proud to stand with them as a steadfast partner.
Obama 2011

…but of course to follow your idiocy……
WWII was a big mistake because FDR killed more Americans than we lost in Pearl Harbor…..
……..”smart power”.

Baxter Greene on May 26, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Bush killed so many Americans in Iraq war though, and even more Iraqis probably 1/2 million or so. More than the 9/11 attackers.
Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 1:40 PM

False. Rosie, is that you?

fossten on May 26, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 1:40 PM

Wipe your chin.

catmman on May 26, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Antiwar Radio Podcast today: Interview with Glenn Greenwald about America’s Growing Tyranny

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 2:04 PM

…yes Greenwald…
……….the super smart liberal who bought the whole “Hope and Change” drivel Hook…line…and sinker.

He has about as much credibility as code pink and Al Gore.

Baxter Greene on May 26, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Ron Paul recognizes that terrorism is Private War that should be worked out via the Letters Language and utilizing the Law of Nations.

Private War is still war. It can be fought with official military power, private military power with sanction via the Letters Language, and by standard law enforcement. Private War does not end until its actors are dead or have been brought before military tribunals or tried for Piracy.

It is one of my few points of agreement with the man.

ajacksonian on May 26, 2011 at 1:41 PM

So don’t agree with eliminating the income tax, ending the fed, protecting the border, or ending the failed war on drugs?

Nelsen on May 26, 2011 at 2:13 PM

The irony is, the world would be a far more fertile ground for libertarian ideals without islam, yet the libertarians are doing everything possible to insure islam remains not just a threat – but an existential danger to all human liberties for all time.

Rebar on May 26, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Sure Islam is a threat. No doubt about it. So potentially is people that own guns. So is the potential for people to get sick and not have healthcare.

That doesn’t mean I want the government to come in and “protect me” by taking away my rights.

Nelsen on May 26, 2011 at 2:15 PM

Wasn’t Reid bragging a few years ago “We killed the Patriot Act”? What a difference a president makes.

Jim-Rose on May 26, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Bush killed so many Americans in Iraq war though, and even more Iraqis probably 1/2 million or so. More than the 9/11 attackers.

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 1:40 PM

Newsflash, Incase you didn’t notice it, it is 2011, not 2008.

Why are you still talking about Bush?

How many has Obama killed?

We do not know because the National Socialist Media is carrying his water big time and does not want to talk about it.

Colbyjack on May 26, 2011 at 2:16 PM

I missed this. Huffair?

Bishop on May 26, 2011 at 1:58 PM

A little overthetop, but sometimes I wonder how many RINOs can write on one blog and still have it called a conservative website. This new girl is apparently Jazz Shaw with prettier hair. Ed links to Dave Waggle every day, as if that lib-twit’s opinion on anything mattered.

Allah … sigh … such a great writer and thinker. Wouldn’t it be fun if he was a conservative!

Jaibones on May 26, 2011 at 2:22 PM

But Iraq doesn’t have anything to do with Osama Bin Laden.

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Antiwar Radio Podcast today: Interview with Glenn Greenwald about America’s Growing Tyranny

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Shut up, dumbfuqq.

Jaibones on May 26, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Your actions bely that answer.

The irony is, the world would be a far more fertile ground for libertarian ideals without islam, yet the libertarians are doing everything possible to insure islam remains not just a threat – but an existential danger to all human liberties for all time.

Rebar on May 26, 2011 at 2:04 PM

What actions?

What on Earth are you talking about? Are you actually admitting that the WoT is another Crusade?

The War Party has been in charge since after WWII, policing the world (something conservatives decried as recently as GWB in 2000) propping up dictators, bossing everybody around, building bases where we are not wanted, killing innocent civilians, creating blowback all over the planet.

Do you neo-Wilsonians think our Founders were complete idiots, or what?

We ignore George Washington at our peril. Our first president as well as Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Adams predicted ruin for a republic that would involve itself in foreign politics. The founders also foresaw and warned against what we now call democracy promotion, the urge to fan the flames started by the American revolution to launch a crusade to convert the nations of the world into firebreathing republicans. James Madison’s Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described it as “going abroad in search of monsters to destroy.”

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

America’s Growing Tyranny

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 2:04 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?

Colbyjack on May 26, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Colbyjack,

Antiwar is a Libertarian website not a left wing website.

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 2:29 PM

Wasn’t this what Hitler did first, found out everyone that had guns than had the brownshirts confiscate them.
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

Spathi in Greek means sword.

The name seems kind of blood thirsty.

Bishop on May 26, 2011 at 1:48 PM

…also Greek slang for ‘penis’.

slickwillie2001 on May 26, 2011 at 2:38 PM

But Iraq doesn’t have anything to do with Osama Bin Laden.

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 2:23 PM

You must sleep well, you lie easy.

1998 US Indictment of bin Laden. Count 1, Part 4

4. Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah 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.

Text of the entire indictment

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html

Del Dolemonte on May 26, 2011 at 2:41 PM

Someone wrote that in an indictment.

Lots of things are written in indictments. Doesn’t mean anything.

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 2:44 PM

test test test

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 2:44 PM

Bush killed so many Americans in Iraq war though, and even more Iraqis probably 1/2 million or so. More than the 9/11 attackers.

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 1:40 PM

More US military members died in non combat in the 8 years Bill Clintoon was Commander in Chief than have died in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

Del Dolemonte on May 26, 2011 at 2:44 PM

Someone wrote that in an indictment.

Lots of things are written in indictments. Doesn’t mean anything.

Spathi on May 26, 2011 at 2:44 PM

How about a US Federal Judge (appointed by Bill Clinton) in New York City ruling in a lawsuit that Iraq and al Qaeda were working together?

“Lots of things are written in a Judge’s legal ruling. Doesn’t mean anything.”

You make it too easy, kid.

Del Dolemonte on May 26, 2011 at 2:46 PM

Comment pages: 1 2