Watch the third minute of Senator Dianne Feinstein’s speech in a meeting of the Intelligence Committee on February 15 2011. Try to twist your mind around her justification of Patriot Act surveillance without probable cause: I am always surprised at the opposition, because I would
“Certain” is a very strong word. It doesn’t mean that an attack will “probably” happen. It doesn’t mean that it’s “likely” to happen. An event that is “certain” is destined to happen, 100% likely, absolutely unavoidable and inescapable. So when five senior government officials tell
Federal News Radio seems to be the only journalistic enterprise in the nation to have picked up on this exchange, in which the nominees for the Department of Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis (Caryn A. Wagner) and the Assistant Secretary of State for
The existence of someone like Adam Eisgrau gives me insights into both the corporate clients he peddles influence for, and the elected officials who have included him as a part of their congressional staff.
(A hat tip to Ramone for the suggestion) If you were hibernating in the early part of October, you missed the spectacle of eight blind donkeys rearing on their hind legs in an acrobatic effort to form the shape of an all-seeing eye. On October
Eight other Democrats still didn’t seem to comprehend what they were dealing with. They argued that the Constitution is just a suggestion that needs to give way when Americans feel scared. They voted in favor of keeping the unconstitutional abuses of the Patriot Act.
8 out of the 12 Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted against protecting Americans’ constitutional rights from known abuses of the Patriot Act. The following is a transcript of the speech Senator Dick Durbin gave explaining why the abuses of the Patriot Act called for a restriction of National Security Letter powers.
Speaking just now to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein has just declared that the FBI cannot possibly succeed in using national security letters if it is limited to engaging in warrantless surveillance in cases when it’s only limited to surveillance of suspected terrorists
The Durbin amendment to S. 1692 would have required that Section 215 Patriot Act spying only be used to protect against spies working against the American government, terrorism, or as a part of spying against foreign targets that are not related to Americans. Who could object to that? Eight Senate Democrats, that’s who.
This website has been unsparingly ungracious toward Senator Dianne Feinstein — and she has deserved every impolite word. She has earned our wrath by supporting unconstitutional warrantless wiretaps, prioritizing corporate immunity over criminal accountability, and rammed pro-torture Michael Mukasey into the Attorney General’s Office. Dianne
Dianne Feinstein insists that the FISA Amendments Act somehow protects civil liberties. Sadly, that’s a lie. I’ve read the law, and I can state quite clearly that it does not protect civil liberties. It sacrifices them at the altar of Homeland Insecurity. The FISA Amendments Act gives the Attorney General the sole power to declare, without any court’s power to stop it, that the spy programs are legal. Guess who runs the spy programs. Why, goodness me – it’s the Attorney General!