previous post next post  

Feingold Censure Resolution

By Dusty (AKA Attila of Argghhh!) on March 15, 2006 | | Comments (6)

From The Corner today:

THE FEINGOLD CENSURE [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

From Senator John Cornyn's office:

Results of the Feingold Censure Resolution (S.Res. 398): Day 2

Democrat co-sponsors of Feingold Resolution: 0

al Qaeda communications intercepted by Feingold Resolution: 0

Terror attacks prevented by Feingold Resolution: 0

I say we start adding to the list and invite our readers to do the
same, i.e.,

Terror suspects apprehended by Feingold Resolution: 0

Days usefully spent reducing the domestic terror threat by Feingold
Resolution: 0

Number of IEDs in Iraq neutralized by Feingold Resolution: 0

Number of good 5-cent cigars developed after Feingold Resolution: 0

etc...

Going to bed now...

Dusty


The Armorer adds: Profiles in Courage? Or just know that it's thin gruel? Dana Milbank on the Democrat Senators and the Feingold Question.

Share This Article:

Categories:

6 Comments

By Jack on March 14, 2006 9:47 PM
Number of years President Bush has violated his oath of office to uphold the Constitution, including that of Article 1 requiring search warrants to be approved by a judge after an affirmation by a witness: 4 and counting Does principle mean nothing at all any more? The Constitution means something, at least to me. It should to all of those who took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution as well, be they Senators, Representatives, members of the Armed Forces, or indeed the President.
 
By John of Argghhh! on March 14, 2006 10:30 PM
Write your representatives Jack. Demand the Articles of Impeachment. Demand Conviction. You have judged and found him guilty. Demand that man be dragged from the White House doing the perp walk. Go. Go Walkabout with your lantern.
 
By Heartless Libertarian on March 14, 2006 11:45 PM
And apparently the fact that everytime a court case has arisen concerning foreign communications surveillance, including at least one after the enactment of FISA, the courts have always ruled in favor of the government. Amount of Senate time wasted by Senator Feingold that could have been used for something more useful, like, say fixing Social Security/Medicare, or bringing our nation's gun laws back into compliance with the Second Amendment: Still counting. But I'm not watching, because it's not worth paying attention to.
 
By Masked Menace© on March 15, 2006 11:27 AM
Considering congress was informed, including Democrats, and as HL pointed out, the courts have consistently backed up foriegn surveillance of this type, and that the domestic side isn't having any action taken against them, I'm just pitching a hissyfit about violating Al Queda's civil rights. I don't want the gov't to have intercepted a phone call from Bin Laden only to discover that the person on the other end is an American and say "Oh well, I guess we have to throw that away."
 
By cw4(ret)billt on March 15, 2006 3:56 PM
Since the Libs seem determined to bestow the benefits of US citizenship upon foreign terrorists whom we have incarcerated on foreign soil (note to those with rising hackles: we don't *own* Gitmo any more than you *own* your leased Beamers), it logically follows that they'd be determined to bestow the term "domestic eavesdropping" on cell phone calls from a foreign country.
 
By cw4(ret)billt on March 15, 2006 4:34 PM
Ummm, Jack? The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. --The Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 9. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. --The Bill of Rights, Amendment IV "...[A]gainst unreasonable searches and seizures..." is an operative phrase. If you're on a cell phone, you have no reason to believe that your conversation is any more private than if you'd rented an FM radio station and broadcast it during drive time. That said, the NSA isn't the least bit interested in listening to you unless your number is in the call-history of a souvenir left by a terrorist or you've been fielding calls from, say, Qom on a regular basis. And, under FISA, calls originating on foreign soil and monitored in a foreign location--including on a ship 12 miles off the Jersey shore--may be monitored and acted upon without the requirement of obtaining a warrant.
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.